Stealing ideas isn’t just for The Asylum…
See the similarities?
First Look Home Entertainment is releasing an indie film tomorrow by the name of The Perfect Witness. It was originally titled The Ungodly, but I guess First Look decided that they needed something more generic. Whatever the case, it certainly looks like someone in marketing at First Look has been following the news about Big Screen Entertainment Group’s horror film Babysitter Wanted.
Pretty scummy, eh?
Update February 22nd: To clear something up, Big Screen Entertainment Group did not contract Stockholm to do the artwork. Rather, international distributor Imagination-LLC contracted them. What company eats the cost of the artwork was a question I did not think to ask.
Word I got today is that BSEG and Imagination have known about the artwork snafu since August. Not only that, but two other movies are using that artwork. Allumination is using it for the rated version of the horror film Carver, and Dream Entertainment is using it to promote Darrell Roodt’s Lullaby overseas.
BSEG used the artwork first. The question is whether those in marketing at First Look knew about Babysitter Wanted when they approved the use of stock art in the final DVD campaign. I suspect that they did, and while there was no ’stealing’ of physical property and a lawsuit is not likely to occur, I do believe First Look knew about the film and the artwork. To me, it’s dishonest to proceed as they did if this is true.
Update - February 21st: Man I love this industry. Here is what it looks like from my angle at the moment. About a year ago Big Screen Entertainment Group contracted Los Angeles-based Stockholm Design to come up with some potential designs for their film Babysitter Wanted. Stockholm, who has designed a lot of slick, professional direct-to-video and limited theatrical artwork campaigns, came back to them with several pieces of art. The artwork that Big Screen chose was, at least in my opinion, the best and most marketable of the bunch.
According to a source Big Screen cut a hefty check for the rights to that artwork [edit: look above for correction] under the assumption that such a high price meant that they owned the physical elements of the artwork. According to the person at Stockholm I spoke to they informed Travis Stevens at Imagination-LLC (the company selling the film to distributors) only a month ago that Big Screen did not, in fact, own the image of the woman with the fingers on her face. Stockholm, however, did not make the artwork for The Perfect Witness.
As such, and I never believed this to start, there is likely no copyright violation coming from First Look. Unscrupulous business practices? Maybe. There is little doubt in my mind that First Look’s marketing division is familiar with Babysitter Wanted. They’re not big on horror nowadays, but considering they have a previous relationship with BSEG (they distributed the awful Jenny McCarthy movie Dirty Love) they’ve likely received distribution feelers. If First Look knew that another company was promoting a movie with the same piece of stock artwork yet still went through with the design of a campaign, that’s all together messed up and unfortunate.
I’ve still yet to hear from someone on First Look’s side officially. There was a post from someone who may work at First Look, but their publicist has been out sick.
Update - February 20th: For those interested in the story I’ve gathered some more information. Big Screen Entertainment Group has been using that particular artwork to promote Babysitter Wanted since May of 2007. The film was advertised in Hollywood Reporter and at Cannes, and has been screened with that artwork attached to it at the Sitges, Malaga, Horror Hound, and the Hollywood film festivals.
I haven’t been able to find out any details about when First Look picked up The Ungodly for distribution. The number I have for the director of the picture is no longer in service and a call to Arsenal Pictures (listed as a distributor on IMDb) revealed that they are only the international distributor of the film.
Earlier today someone by the name of ’scalia’s robes’ posted the following comment.
Well, I guess this would be an actual issue if “Babysitter Wanted†even had a street date attached to it. Has the title even been announced? “Perfect Witness†is locked and at retail…so who’s stealing from whom?
Looks like Big Screen Entertainment are the ones caught with their pants down here, not First Look…
“Street date” “Locked and at retail.” Sounds like industry lingo to me. As someone in the industry joked to me in an e-mail, “You are correct about that inside terminology. I barely speak that tongue!” The point of the comment escapes me, as someone who clearly understands the industry should realize that companies produce artwork when they’re trying to sell a film TO a distributor that will put their movie in video stores. Artwork doesn’t just magically appear only when a film has a release date set.
This is purely circumstantial, but here’s something nifty. When someone comments on an article I get an e-mail that lists an IP address. The IP address for ’scalia’s robes,’ when entered into Google, returns a post that links to the First Look’s website.
Big Screen Entertainment Group is now in the process of getting a whole new artwork campaign made. First Look, under their previous management, released their film Dirty Love last year.
I’m awaiting an official response from First Look.
Yeah that is pretty shitty.
What a bunch of crap. I’m not renting that movie.
Well, I guess this would be an actual issue if “Babysitter Wanted” even had a street date attached to it. Has the title even been announced? “Perfect Witness” is locked and at retail…so who’s stealing from whom?
Looks like Big Screen Entertainment are the ones caught with their pants down here, not First Look…
Ugh. How do street dates justify or in any way explain this?
Big Screen Entertainment Group has been using that piece of artwork to promote BABYSITTER WANTED for probably over a year. I virtually guarantee you First Look didn’t conceive that piece of artwork before BSEG did.
BSEG got screwed here, because now they have to pay to create new artwork.
Edit: They’ve been using the artwork to promote the film for about nine months.
Ohhh, and by the way, the IP address that was attached to that comment was 38.99.244.98.
Put that into Google in quotes and look at the cached version.
“US United States Monday October 22nd 6:41pm 38.99.244.98 - http://www.FirstLookStudios.com
email: = ealaniz@firstlookstudios.com,aharding@firstlookstudios.com”
Not to get into a flame war but thought you might enjoy this link:
http://horrormovies.ca/horror_8570.html
The artwork was introduced in Cannes in all of the trades. It is unfortunate that it is being used for several movies right now, but imitation is the sincerest form of flatery.
Fascinating. Big Screen Entertainment had this artwork in trade publications at Cannes last year (May 2007) as Imagination, the international distributor has been selling “Babysitter Wanted” for almost a year now.
The artwork was also used at Sitges, Malaga, Hollywood Film Festival, Bloody Disgusting/Horror Hound festival where “Babysitter Wanted” was in competition. Really quite something how First Look, who only recently acquired this title, is trying to shift blame.
First Look then writes a disparaging comment about Big Screen and looks more foolish. Pretty outrageous.
HAHAHAHAHAH. What a load of crap.
I cant believe you’re is actually reporting on something with substance Greg
Who designed the artwork? It looks like the same image in both posters
Gee, maybe it’s not such a good idea to put out outwork NINE MONTHS before the movie hits the shelves????
Considering whoever stole from whom obviously stole the same image, why isn’t there a lawsuit happening? Or can D2DVD companies slap anything on their DVD covers?
Francine,
Here’s how the process works for a movie like BABYSITTER WANTED
1) You have a production company — Big Screen Entertainment Group (BSEG). They made BABYSITTER WANTED.
2) Now BSEG has a movie, but no way to get the movie into stores. Most reputable U.S. DVD distributors prefer to buy a film from another distributor. This distributor is not in charge of physically getting a DVD into stores. This distributor is in charge of selling the rights to the movie in certain areas of the world, for certain functions (TV, DVD, VOD, etc.). In the case of BABYSITTER WANTED you have Pierre David’s Imagination Films, who is in charge of selling the film worldwide.
3) At this point Imagination Films would, after testing the waters and seeing what offers they get, finally sell the film to a U.S. distributor. U.S. DVD distribution will, in the end, only account for a certain amount of what the film will earn, as foreign sales are very important as well (and very hard for a small company with no contacts to make).
The reason why the artwork was on the website is simple — they’re trying to sell the film to not only a U.S. distributor, but distributors all over the world. Most films’ artwork appears on the web months if not years prior to being picked up for video distribution. This is not an anomaly. The anomaly, however, is that most films don’t have their artwork copied in that time period.
I don’t know who did what but I believe the “Perfect Witness” art was done first. The “Babysitter Wanted” art looks like someone simply dropped some filters over the original, added some blood and bruises here and there on the hand (and added something different in the chick’s eyes) and now you have new art. They also did something to the thumb on the hand but I do believe the art is the exact same photo only altered in Photoshop. Even the shadows around the face match. I’ll admit the P.Shop artist was pretty good though.
-Nate
Doubtful. From what I was told the face with the fingers is a piece of stock art that any company can purchase. I don’t think First Look even owned THE UNGODLY (which is what THE PERFECT WITNESS became) when BSEG debuted that artwork.
There’s a York Entertainment movie (I think REST IN PEACE CUERVO JONES, or maybe RICCO — whatever it is they don’t sell it anymore) that had a black man holding a gun looking menacing (really narrows it down with York, huh?). A couple of years ago I was in my school library and saw an anti-gang book with the same photo on it. That’s because York bought the rights to use that photo from a stock company.