Look advanced to far added agreeable from you! By the way,
how can we keep up a correspondence?

A subsequent Federal Court of Canada case made the same finding where a publisher took parts of a book on Shania Twain and used those parts in a new book on Twain. The publisher argued that the parts taken could not be subject to copyright protection by the original author because they lacked originality and were simply facts about Twain’s life. The court distinguished the U.S. law in this area and followed Gould. It found that the original author/interviewer owned copyright in the interview with Twain and that the publisher infringed the expression of the facts, not the facts themselves.
More details here: http://tinyurl.com/mdmr6
and here: http://www.dww.com/articles/fedcourt.htm

[Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (1997) 67 Cal.App.4th 318]

A subsequent Federal Court of Canada case made the same finding where a publisher took parts of a book on Shania Twain and used those parts in a new book on Twain. The publisher argued that the parts taken could not be subject to copyright protection by the original author because they lacked originality and were simply facts about Twain’s life. The court distinguished the U.S. law in this area and followed Gould. It found that the original author/interviewer owned copyright in the interview with Twain and that the publisher infringed the expression of the facts, not the facts themselves.
More details here: http://tinyurl.com/mdmr6
and here: http://www.dww.com/articles/fedcourt.htm

BTW, I am going to steal you guys’ comments for my blog, if you don’t like it, my hosting provider is a known walk-over.

The hard question is, what if the interviewee does something like compose a limmerick during the interview?

The many joys of copyright.

I’m not sure “want to” is the right verb; I think the concern is with “lift subconsciously,” or “are alleged to have lifted.” Determining where the copyrightable expression is and whether bits of a film are “substantially similar” is hard, either ex ante or ex post; much easier just to get a license. Maybe I’m missing what’s driving your concern, but it really seems pretty straightforward to me.

Branko, “8” is her real middle name; and great question about interviews. There’s surprisingly little case law. There’s an old case involving Hemingway, but the court found that Hemingway granted the interview with the understanding that it would be published, so without deciding the issue of interviewee ownership, they concluded that even if he owned the copyright he had impliedly licensed the reporter to publish it. The case pre-dates the 1976 Act, which is why it discusses “common-law copyright,” which no longer exists.