Remember the woman who was arrested for recording two minutes of Twilight in a movie theatre? Turns out that after spending two days in jail, she decided to sue the cinema in which she was caught.
A 22-year-old woman jailed two days in November after being arrested for filming two brief snippets of a motion picture is lashing back at the theatre, claiming its manager demanded her arrest despite the police department’s reluctance.
In a civil suit lodged in Illinois federal court, Samantha Tumpach claims local police and the Motion Picture Association of American recommended against arresting her. A felony theatre-filming charge carrying up to three years in prison was subsequently dropped.
The woman filed suit Monday, claiming emotional distress and malicious prosecution on behalf of Muvico theatres, whose manager allegedly demanded her arrest in a bid to win a financial reward. The MPAA, and the National Association of Theatre Owners offers $US500 rewards (.pdf) to movie house workers who catch pirates.
The first person arrested for filming in a US theatre, a federal and state crime in most states, was a 19-year-old woman who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour in 2007. Jhannet Sejas paid a $US71 fine for filming 20 seconds of Transformers in a Virginia theatre. Regal Entertainment Group pushed for her prosecution.
On Tumpach’s camera, the authorities found a host of pictures she took in the theatre of her friends and sister, in addition to two clips of the motion picture Twilight: New Moon, according to the suit. One was 114 seconds long. The other was 85 seconds, the suit said.
One of the snippets was captured in hopes of filming Tumpach’s “favourite actor taking his shirt off,” according to the suit.
The lawsuit, which seeks $US50,000 in damages, claims the woman did not film with intent to pirate the movie, that instead she was having fun with her friends and family at a birthday party at the Rosemont, Illinois theatre.
“Samantha, in the open theatre area and in plain view of others, was subsequently placed under arrest, handcuffed and was walked through the theatre and out to the officers’ vehicle where she was placed in the rear seat of the squad car, while numerous theatre guests witnessed, pointed and gasped as Samantha cried with fright, humiliation and shame,” (.pdf) the suit said.
The suit claims that, once local officers took the woman to the station, they called the MPAA for guidance. The suit says the MPAA recommended destroying the footage and releasing her.
Linda Colangelo, a spokeswoman for Muvico theatres based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was not immediately prepared to comment.
Wired.com has been expanding the hive mind with technology, science and geek culture news since 1995.
Adam
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:14 PMOk, firstly let me say that i will have nothing to do with these crap movies, but..
I can watch a trailer of a movie, and even download trailers from the internet with no risk
i can’t record the same section of a movie with my phone, in crap quality?
I can record a song from the radio with no risk, and they even sell the equipment to do this
i can’t download a song from the internet
if i record a movie with my phone, i get charged almost nothing
but downloading songs from the internet costs as much as a house, for only a handful? (cbf looking for the article that mentioned the cost of downloading a song..)
how is this fair or right? clearly they are just trying to protect themselves..
especially when i can buy a DVD of most movies in a few years after they are released for less than going to the movies..?!!
and you buy a song for $1 from iTunes but get charged thousands for downloading it illegally?
when will people realise that i’m not going to buy the CD, so they were never going to get the moneyt, so downloading it isn’t a loss to them.. think of downlaods as free advertising!
Xheis
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 9:14 PMAdam, You are a smart man. However this is not about balancing books, this is about punishing someone regardless of circumstance. This woman filmed a portion of a movie some other person didn’t want her to film. Its in every right for them to do what they have done. Is it fair? I don’t know, will she do it again?
“I can watch a trailer of a movie, and even download trailers from the internet with no risk” Trailer. She filmed portion of the movie. Idk if you mean that the scene was in the trailer, and if so. She’s an idiot.
” clearly they are just trying to protect themselves..” Yes. And?
“I can record a song from the radio with no risk, and they even sell the equipment to do this”
No, your not.
“especially when i can buy a DVD of most movies in a few years after they are released for less than going to the movies..?!!”
Yes, we know. Its a industry. You can purchase a viewing of it in advance for a added fee, or purchase it once the industry releases it.
“and you buy a song for $1 from iTunes but get charged thousands for downloading it illegally?”
Because they want they’re dam money. Pirating is your own choice if it is a choice of yours and they’re allowed compensation, punishment and the right to make examples.
MDolley
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:16 PMAre you sure she wasn’t just arrested for being a twilight fan?
Heath
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 1:08 PMHaha +1 to you good sir! If only that were a crime…the punishment should be a lynching!
Shane
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 1:10 PMFirstly, I’d be interested in knowing if there is a “minimum” amount a person can freely acquire in this manner (like been able to use 30 seconds of song in a film) before it is considered copying.
I’d also be interested in knowing if pirating is the act of copying or the act of distributing.
Personally, I’ll be staying at home more often, hate to have to take a face call in a theater :P
Heath
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 3:16 PMVery true Shane, it’s hard to tell what is considered piracy. At the beginning of a DVD it will say that part or all of the movie can not be copied or redistributed, but no such warnings appear at the beginning of a movie at the cinema. Piracy in the traditional sense (you know, of the high seas…ARRRRRR) was the usurping of goods for use or redistribution…in that case piracy began when the pirates started looting a ship. If that applies here, then the girl was in fact pirating part of the movie. Not saying I agree with it, but that’s my interruption.
Si Mon
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 6:30 PMGuess you’ve gotta start somewhere.
Sure, it’s only two short clips of the movie on a mobile phone.
With phones getting more and more powerful though, who’s to say in a year or two it won’t be possible to capture an entire movie on your phone in decent watchable quality?
mr-crash
Saturday, July 3, 2010 at 2:36 AMYou could probably already do this now.
But the point is, it would be a fundamentally different behaviour.
As part of the AUSFTA (Australian US Free Trade Agreement) we sort of inherited a whole bunch of very sloppy, quick reforms to copyright and associated matters. This is relevant here because part of this was the criminalisation of circumvention for DRM (it’s actually called “technological protection mechanisms” in legislation, but it’s the same thing).
Part of the angst around that was associated with fair use. Until 2004 or 2005, ripping a CD you legally owned to play on an mp3 player (like an ipod) wasn’t something you could legally do in Australia.
Fair use provisions are important because they recognise that any kind of digital entertainment is something the consumer increasingly wants to interact with. If it’s a movie, maybe people want to share their favourite glitter vampire getting his top off, or if it’s a song, people might want to use it as a ringtone.
Lawsuits around this that demand prosecution are in many other places, treading a fine line against related provisions to stop so called “SLAPP” lawsuits (strategic lawsuit against public participation). They’re not done for some direct monetary loss to the copyright holder, they’re done to freak out the public and stop some practice an industry sees as harmful.
While it’s perhaps a legitimate concern that technology is developing quickly and we do need to ensure that the rights of copyright and other intellectual property holders are maintained, it’s also important that large enterprises can’t abuse process this way or financially crucify, humiliate or otherwise mess with people for something that is simply not that damaging.
srw
Saturday, July 3, 2010 at 7:36 AMThe police call the MPAA for guidance? well I guess we know now who’s really in charge. And the guidance is to destroy evidence/property? Wow… just wow.