To Tommy Wiseau,
I am writing this letter in response to a copyright claim against a fellow internet review named the Nostalgia Critic, real name Doug Walker. If my sources are correct, you (or someone named "John", although I'll get to that issue later) have taken down his review of your film The Room, claiming copyright infringement for unauthorized use of footage.
I would understand this course of action if Mr. Walker earned money for this tenure. I would understand if he worked for a major publication and did not seek out your approval.
However, your poor grasp of [American] copyright laws astounds me. Mr. Walker's review of your movie uses unauthorized footage, yes, but the thing is he is not earning a profit from it. This is an independent film critic, mainly parodizing the movies he reviews and offering an opinion on it. Nothing more; the reviews don't generate any kind of direct profit. Indirect profit? Perhaps, but that is generated from the hits that the Nostalgia Critic's show has produced since 2008 and the purchased ad-space that comes as a result of that. My point is, he is not making profit off of your movie.
If he was making profit from your movie, he was making profit from everybody else in the film industry. Let's put it this way; if your views of copyright infringement were correct, then Arnold Schwarzenegger, Joel Schumacher, Rob Reiner, Peter Jackson, John Travolta, Roland Emmerich, Don Bluth, Christopher Walken, Uwe Boll, Lou Scheimer, Ted Turner, and Mackauley Caulkin should all have sued Doug Walker by now. That they haven't done what you've done shows that they understand copyright better than you do.
Neither is he damaging the image of your movie. Is it a negative review? Yes. Does it make fun of your [ridiculously inept] acting? Yes. Does it make fun of how [dis]organized your movie is? Yes. But ultimately he recommended that the viewers watch the movie for themselves, thus promoting your movie to those that haven't seen it.
I was among those considering seeing your movie after the Nostalgia Critic's review. I was going to pay actual money to see your movie on my own so I could see it for myself. Even after his review went down, I still considered maybe even renting it.
After I found out the reason it was taken down? You'll be lucky if I ever see your smug, pretentious, and very ugly face again without me wanting to punch it.
Your taking down of his review demonstrates a poor conception of copyright law, but I've already covered that. To me, it also shows that you have a poor conception of what your 'image' is. Have you forgotten that the only reason The Room hasn't been forgotten by audiences is because of how ridiculously bad it is? Have you also forgotten that you yourself went through great pains to promote your movie when you first made it? If more people knew about this movie, then more people surely would have gone to see it.
But no. By taking down Doug Walker's review of The Room, you have shown that you are insecure.
I keep on saying that 'you' took down the review; if my sources are correct, then the one who took it down was a man named 'John'. If it really was a man named 'John', I would consider his employment, maybe give it to someone else who understands copyright better than he does.
But I know better than that.
You're not fooling anyone, Mr. Wiseau; by this point, it's fairly obvious that "John" is really you. This brings up another point entirely; the review of The Room was negative, which is almost impending given your horrible acting "skills". The fact that you took it down destroys you're already almost non-existent integrity. You speak about The Room in interviews as if it was Citizen Kane. Is it the Citizen Kane of bad movies? Certainly. But it's not Citizen Kane in the sense that you are thinking of.
And your taking down Mr. Walker's review of The Room shows that you do are unable to take negative criticism well. This is not about copyright; this is about you not liking someone else's point of view and not wanting to hear it. You know who does stuff like that? Immature teens or minimum wage workers on fanfiction websites with mental problems who flame people to draw attention to the shit they like to call 'the greatest fanfiction you've ever read'. Professional producers (like you, I hope) do not do something like that as it demonstrates a great amount of immaturity on their part. Hell, not even Uwe Boll does the things you have done; yes, he's a bad film maker, yes he doesn't like it when you say it to his face, but even he doesn't take down video reviews that have only bad things to say about his reviews.
And that is why you will never see a single penny of my money in your wallet. There is absolutely nothing I loathe more than a man who thinks he is the greatest thing that happened since sliced bread and is willing to go to any lengths to take down any body of speech that disagrees that he can take down without getting major backlash. You think you will be able to cover this just because it's on the internet? You will ultimately lose more precisely because it is the internet; word spreads very fast in this place. You have done much more damage to your image than you can possibly hope to repair, and you have incurred the wrath of an entire group of fans that enjoyed Mr. Walker's review of your movie and considered seeing it for themselves.
Oh, and because of this I have sworn off ever seeing The House That Drips Blood On Alex. Ditto for any movie you ever make after that.
-Herr Wozzeck
