My Mockumentary needs photos

[skrott]

Ok so I am making a Mockumentary, and I need to show photos of all those running for 2008 presidential office.

Can i pull there photos from there website? or again are we on Copyright ground?
Do you need to get permission from the one who took the photo?
do these people have a stock photo for use for this reason?

[corona]

Skrott, I pasted some exerpts from a law review here. You can read this for yourself.

17 U.S.C.A. § 107Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use—
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular
case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

"The characterization "fair use" is actually a misnomer, since authors have never enjoyed the exclusive use of their works in the literal sense, but had only certain relatively more limited rights, e.g., reproduction, distribution, and performance."

Criticism, news reporting, research and scholarship, and parody and burlesque, have all been considered purposes tending to exempt a use from
infringement. In assessing the purpose and character of the a defendant's use of the
plaintiff's work, the bad faith of the defendant should be considered.Such
bad faith may be demonstrated by the defendant having obtained unauthorized access to the plaintiff's work.

If a defendant's work is determined to be a parody of the copyrighted work, the
defendant is entitled to more extensive use of the copied work than is ordinarily
allowed under the substantial similarity test. A parody is a work in which the
language or style of another is closely imitated or mimicked for comic effect or ridicule, while a satire is a work that holds up the vices or shortcomings of an individual or an institution to ridicule or deri sion, usually with intent to stimulate
change by the use of wit, irony, or sarcasm. Parody needs to mimic an original to
make its point, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing. Thus, the heart of any parodist's claim to
quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition in a new one that, at least in part, comment's on that author's works.
Accordingly, the works of a photographer that juxtaposed nude Barbie dolls with vintage kitchen appliances in order to criticize the objectification of woman were
found to be protected by fair use. Fair use may also provide a defense to
the use of a brief video clip of a "signature song" when it is used for the purposes
of parody. As the rationale for treating parody as a fair use is to allow
some critical comment or statement about the original work, to be exempt from infringement, a parody must do more than merely achieve a comic effect—it must have a social value beyond its entertainment function.

Hope that helps clear it up for you.

[skrott]

not really, seems like it is all up to one interpretation of social value vs comedy effect

[Evro]

Hmmm, that's kind of the way I read it too, however, if your mocumentary can highlight some sort of injustice (ala Michael Moore) then you must be fully entitled to plead Fair Use.

I wonder how the movie "Team America" got away with "Fair Use" after its blatant attack on Holywood actors?

I say go for it!!

[corona]

Skrott, the problem here is that what I pasted for you in the reply is just a tiny bit of info on the subject, I see how you can come that conclusion having such an extremely limited bit of info to read. There is so much more to it. For instance there must be a fair notice given by the author that the right is being retained or exercised. That notice is as simple as this: copyright, 2007, John Doe.
A common misconception is that you have to pay some fee or register it or some other ceremonial act. Not true, that notice is every bit as valid, because it's a fair notice by the author that the rights are not waived.
The whole subject is so broad and it wasn't fair really to give you such a limited bit of info on this.
There was a guy named Joshua who had made a statement in your other thread that went something like this:
"Copyright law protects the right of the author to control when , how , or where, their work is used, or if it is used at all"
remember that bit of information from this guy? Well as you can see, it is the exact opposite from the truth. It is as wrong or incorrect as it gets. Once the author puts it out there he doesn't have exclusive rights to the work. " ...since the authors never enjoyed exclusive right to their works..." Anyone can use it, provided they use it fairly. If the author gave notice. You see how many other factors kick in? Like commercial use, private use, fair use, it's very broad. So you have to look at this whole thing considering all the aspects of it. But once you understand the basic principles that govern this, it's really not that hard. The copyright laws protect the authors commercial interests generally, but that protection is fairly limited.

The comedy vs social value thing... that was merely a "rationale for treating a parody as fair use", that doesn't sound like what you are doing at all. A parody is this case is like taking someones movie and remaking it in a really humorouos way, using the same story line, same characters, everything. Example would be like the movies that Leslie Nielson does all the time, like Naked Gun, Airplane, Reposessed. You notice that they don't use the titles of the original movies that they parody? But yet it is crystal clear what movie they are making fun of, right?

If you go back an read all the other "stuff" I wrote, it should all be fairly clear and understandable. I hope I'm not over complicating this whole thing, I'm trying to make it fairly easy to understand in addition to busting some legal myths. Am I missing the mark or doing ok?

[Arson]

1. Just put a plate at the beginning that states: this film is satire

2. corona, thank you for your insight.

3. Every filmmaker needs to find some musicians. Do a music video for free for an unsigned band in return for a signed release to use their music. To a young musician the exposure of having your music in a film (good or bad) is worth letting someone use it in their film for free.

I have a few friends in 2 fairly well known bands. I shoot video for their side projects and in return they let me use their side project's music for free. In fact all of them have said I can do as many videos or films using the music as I want. Unless a label knows you are going to sell a lot of CDs they really wont put as much into a band as the band wants. If a band isn't mainstream enough of a style (I deal with industrial, electro, punk, and metal bands) the label wont even bother with music videos because theres little chance of airplay. Young artists generally would LOOOOOVE to be in the sound track of your film...for free. If they are signed, then can make a request to their label to give you a music release.