What is Really goin on?? DST "Movie"??

[ladygreek]

A legit arguement about what? The issue is not whether the movie is accurate or not (which I doubt it will be,) but the fact it was made without our permission. And they will be making money off of us.

And from what I have been told, this is just their first step. They plan to do this with the other NPHC orgs as well. So if this flops maybe the others won't have to go through this.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

A legit arguement about what? The issue is not whether the movie is accurate or not (which I doubt it will be,) but the fact it was made without our permission. And they will be making money off of us.

And from what I have been told, this is just their first step. They plan to do this with the other NPHC orgs as well. So if this flops maybe the others won't have to go through this.

Legally, a filmmaker doesn't need permission of the entity in question to make a movie portraying them.

Example in point.

The 1997 movie Titanic won 11 Oscars and amassed millions of dollars in box office receipts. IIRC, director James Cameron didn't ask the Cunard Shipping Lines (successor of the White Star Line) for permission to portray the ship and the disaster (although this was the 8th theatrical protrayal of the disaster--and in one of the movies Titanic's Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall served as technical advisor in "A Night to Remember" in 1967--but I digress). Nonetheless, the movie was filmed, screened, and the rest is history.

Point is, I don't think these filmmakers are trying to capitalize off Delta any more than James Cameron was trying to capitalize off the White Star/Cunard Line. Granted, it would have been nice and would have served as a bonus if they did get Delta's NEB's blessing, but if not, so what? You cannot legally reserve the right (copyright/trademark/patent) to a historical event, which is essentially all this is and all this comes down to.

Just a thought.

[Kimmie1913]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Legally, a filmmaker doesn't need permission of the entity in question to make a movie portraying them.

Example in point.

The 1997 movie Titanic won 11 Oscars and amassed millions of dollars in box office receipts. IIRC, director James Cameron didn't ask the Cunard Shipping Lines (successor of the White Star Line) for permission to portray the ship and the disaster (although this was the 8th theatrical protrayal of the disaster--and in one of the movies Titanic's Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall served as technical advisor in "A Night to Remember" in 1967--but I digress). Nonetheless, the movie was filmed, screened, and the rest is history.

Point is, I don't think these filmmakers are trying to capitalize off Delta any more than James Cameron was trying to capitalize off the White Star/Cunard Line. Granted, it would have been nice and would have served as a bonus if they did get Delta's NEB's blessing, but if not, so what? You cannot legally reserve the right (copyright/trademark/patent) to a historical event, which is essentially all this is and all this comes down to.

Just a thought.

They may not need permission per se but there are images that are in fact copyrighted/trademarked (just ask Converse) and I am curious as to whether or not any of those things were used in the movie. In addition, it is important to make clear that this "project" is in no way associated with or endorsed by Delta and that there has been no quality control whatsoever as to the accuracy of the facts in the story. If they had wanted to make a movie depicting what life was ike for Black women in the early 1900's they could have done that mentioning the formation of Alpha Kappa Alpha and Delta Sigma Theta with out making an unauthorized movie about either's history. None of this means they couldn't make the movie but, for me, it means that I am not interested in it and will make others aware of its pitfalls and Delta's position.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Point is, I don't think these filmmakers are trying to capitalize off Delta any more than James Cameron was trying to capitalize off the White Star/Cunard Line. Just a thought.

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what they are trying to do. Starting with the Founders painting, this is what they set out to do. Heck, the artist (and one of the producers) is an Alpha. Why didn't he make a movie of his own frat--it is their 100th anniversary? Could it be that he didn't get permission?

[CrimsonTide4]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what they are trying to do. Starting with the Founders painting, this is what they set out to do. Heck, the artist (and one of the producers) is an Alpha. Why didn't he make a movie of his own frat--it is their 100th anniversary? Could it be that he didn't get permission?

Precisely.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what they are trying to do. Starting with the Founders painting, this is what they set out to do. Heck, the artist (and one of the producers) is an Alpha. Why didn't he make a movie of his own frat--it is their 100th anniversary? Could it be that he didn't get permission?

Good questions.

My answer would honestly be: I'on know. Ladies first, perhaps?

A follow up question I have is "Why Delta? (as opposed to the other 3 GLOs)" Another one would be "What would this company do with the profits from the movie? (assuming they amass such)"--the answer that probably will be to parlay those funds into another "Black Fraternity/Sorority Project" movie. But I'm just guessing.

Just a thought-provoking question: Would you have felt better if they used all the elements of Delta's founding but took a Dragnet-style approach to sorority identification (the names have been changed to protect the innocent).

I know of one movie (Fraternity Row) that took that approach with regards to an actual hazing death (a pledge died during initiation choking to death on a piece of liver--the fictional frat portrayed was called Gamma Nu Pi, the actual fraternity involved was the Kappa Sigma fraternity at USC back in 1959).

Is the central issue here the mere portrayal of such a movie, getting the org in question's blessing, or historical accuracy?

[NoChaser3]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Good questions.

My answer would honestly be: I'on know. Ladies first, perhaps?

Why Delta? Because we're the largest - we have the most members, and as such, the most potential for him to make money.

What would they do with the profits? SPEND THEM. PAY THEIR BILLS. Same thing my brother does with the profits from his veterinary clinics.

Would you have felt better if they used all the elements of Delta's founding but took a Dragnet-style approach to sorority identification (the names have been changed to protect the innocent). No. I still wouldn't like someone trying to profit off of my sorority and my sorors.

Is the central issue here the mere portrayal of such a movie, getting the org in question's blessing, or historical accuracy? They're all issues. The main one for me is someone trying to make money off of Delta. Historical accuracy is also an issue - we have someone - a non-member - making a documentary about our Founders when he doesn't really know what's up - he CAN'T know what's really up. He doesn't CARE about our Founders - his real motivation is to SELL COPIES OF HIS PRINT TO AS MANY DELTAS AS HE CAN, so that he can MAKE MONEY. That's not cool to me.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by NoChaser3

Why Delta? He doesn't CARE about our Founders - his real motivation is to SELL COPIES OF HIS PRINT TO AS MANY DELTAS AS HE CAN, so that he can MAKE MONEY. That's not cool to me.

You know what, I actually believe you, only because if it wasn't the case, I think a lot more of the Black (and mainstream) communities would be in the know about this venture and that there would be word out trying to market the movie. There has been very little, if any, marketing of this movie to the general public, which causes me to wonder if the primary intended audience for this movie is the Delta membership, and the general public as an afterthought.

NoChaser, you post literally made me go Hmmmmm.

Anyway....we'll see what happens.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Heck, the artist (and one of the producers) is an Alpha. Why didn't he make a movie of his own frat--it is their 100th anniversary? Could it be that he didn't get permission?

You know, I think the answer (at least part of it) can be found here. Believe it or not, I stumbed across this surfing GC tonight.

[Kimmie1913]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

You know, I think the answer (at least part of it) can be found here. Believe it or not, I stumbed across this surfing GC tonight.

The same things stated regarding Alpha 's name, symbols, etc. applies to Delta. If you go on to our website their are procedures for becoming a licensed vendor for that reason. Again, that is why I am curious as to whether they use our name symbols and other protected in the movie. For their sakes and ours, I hope not.

[NoChaser3]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

You cannot legally reserve the right (copyright/trademark/patent) to a historical event, which is essentially all this is and all this comes down to.

Just a thought.

However, we DO own the trademark to the words "Delta Sigma Theta" and the greek symbols.

What it comes down to is someone trying to make money off of Delta without our consent. Not cool.

[HumblePie]

I have heard a lot of conversation about this "documentary" and many members of the org. believe that the movie won't profit as well as many other movies. As a prospect it is my opinion that on sheer interest alone it will do well. If the film is released to mass audiences and promoted well those (mostly undergrads) who are at the point where they crave anything Delta because they want to be in the know (no matter what that is assumed to be) the film will bring about a nice profit. I know as a nonmember who has read In Search of Sisterhood-when I was an undergrad I wanted more. More information-more knowledge and if this film is promoted as a factual account of events (even if it's not) then the Delta Prospects will make it a a winner in cinema. what do you all think? Also the comment about Why Delta? Well as much as it may be out of line or a bit disrespectful to produce without the blessing of the org-it's good business. i believe someone touched on it a bit earlier-but Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. is a cash cow for this type of explotation. The largest sorority of the devinie nine...just reading the demogaphics of delta's members leaves one to know that the target audience for this film consist of well educated-paid-hungry for the arts type of women. Delta attracts the same type of woman it's already made of-so the well educated prospects-hungry for Delta-will go to the viewing.

[ladygreek]

Can we lock this thread?

[CrimsonTide4]

Sure.