Porn Classic “Deep Throat” Gets Down and Dirty with “Lovelace”

The production company behind one of the most famous adult films of all time, Deep Throat, had their lawsuit against the Weinstein Company dismissed when the court held that the use of the film’s copyrights and trademarks in the bio pic, Lovelace, was Fair Use.
Deep Throat is a famous pornographic film released in 1972 and stars Linda Lovelace. I guess the judge’s law clerks did some in-depth watching on the skin flick because the court’s opinion contains a highly detailed and explicit recital of the movie’s plot…we will refrain from doing so but just leave you with one quote from the court, the film is “replete with explicit sexual scenes and sophomoric humor…”   Besides owning the copyright to the film, the producers are also owners of the LINDA LOVELACE and DEEP THROAT trademarks.
In 2013, the Weinstein Company released the movie, Lovelace, starring Amanda Seyfried which tells the story of Linda Boreman, the woman who portrayed Linda Lovelace and how she was coerced into the adult film, her later success, and then eventual disdain for the industry.  Much to the law clerks’ chagrin, and they note as such, Lovelace does not contain any pornographic scenes or nudity.
Plaintiffs allege that three scenes from Deep Throat are recreated, in part in, Lovelace. The scenes contained plot, actions and conversations taken from the copyrighted film without permission.  Besides the film being ripped off, plaintiff claims that the trademarks of the film and its star are used without consent.
The court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims finding that the movie’s use of copyrighted material fell under the doctrine of Fair Use.  The court found that the use was transformative as it added new, critical perspectives to the Deep Throat movie and that the recreated scenes are markedly different because they contain cuts to actors playing the film’s producers and camera crew. The court also dismissed the trademarks claims finding that plaintiff fails to allege that consumers are likely to be confused by defendants’ conduct.  This case proves that even adult film makers don’t get lucky all the time.