Naked Scene?

[David W. Richardson]

You are right, all copyright for the purposes of this have been lifted...

HUH??? How do you figure this footage isn't copyright protected? Doing it 'more like an exercise' isn't listed as one of the permissable 'fair use' exceptions, as far as I know. Copying is copying.

[Jeff Koenig]

It's definitely not protected by fair use. That said, the chances of anything coming from it are slim, and even then you're most likely just looking at a DMCA take down notice for any public exhibition (vimeo, youtube). Whether you choose to proceed or not is up to you - yes, you're breaking copyright law. Make no mistake on that. No, you probably won't get sued or anything for doing it. Do with that info what you will.

That said, I'm a producer, not a shooter. I'm far more interested in knowing how you're going to backlight the talent into silhouette while still adequately lighting the green screen behind them. It sounds like a way more challenging set up (to me) than just going to shoot on location. What's the lighting set up to pull this off? Honestly curious.

[David W. Richardson]

It's definitely not protected by fair use. That said, the chances of anything coming from it are slim, and even then you're most likely just looking at a DMCA take down notice for any public exhibition (vimeo, youtube). Whether you choose to proceed or not is up to you - yes, you're breaking copyright law. Make no mistake on that. No, you probably won't get sued or anything for doing it. Do with that info what you will.

That said, I'm a producer, not a shooter.

You're quite right.

I'm a producer too, though. And I tend to side with the owner of the material when it comes to copyright issues. Sure, he can do what he wants and take the chance. But right is right and wrong is wrong.

[CharlesPapert]

It's definitely not protected by fair use.

Since the OP has never explicitly described what this project will be used for--are you guys suggesting that there is not a single instance in which it is legally acceptable to restage a copyrighted scene? Not for educational purposes in an acedemic institution; not for one's personal practice, in one's own home, without intention to show elsewhere? I'm no copyright lawyer, but at a certain point...

Well, at least I can answer the green screen question--shooting a silhouette on green screen is pretty easy. Separation of the talent from the background is important to avoid green spill on the subject. I'd rig solids on either side and over the talent to eliminate any light leak on them as well. If there is still some unavoidable detail captured on the subject, after pulling the key it would be quite easy to crush the values to bring them down to complete silhouette.

[David W. Richardson]

Since the OP has never explicitly described what this project will be used for--are you guys suggesting that there is not a single instance in which it is legally acceptable to restage a copyrighted scene? Not for educational purposes in an acedemic institution; not for one's personal practice, in one's own home, without intention to show elsewhere? I'm no copyright lawyer, but at a certain point...

Well if he's doing it as a classroom educator in a bona fide learning institution (meaning a school or university, not YouTube or "the school of life") then that's different. But he hasn't given the slightest indication of that.

And "one's personal practice" is certainly not covered by the fair use exemption, though as long as he never shows it to anybody, it really won't matter. But I'm guessing he's like most of us, and wants others to see his work.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

And "one's personal practice" is certainly not covered by the fair use exemption, though as long as he never shows it to anybody, it really won't matter.

And what legal theory would support that?

From the US government pamphlet on the subject, each case may require consideration in and of itself. However there are 4 general considerations listed, such as 'purpose and character of use', 'the nature of the work', 'extent of use', and 'commercial impact on the copyright holder'.

So, if someone made a 'home video' of a 'scene', for the purpose of autodidactic education, posted it for 'review' of how well they performed the exercise, and given the 'character' of the result... and the infinitesimal effect commercially by such an exercise...

I think the court would find in favor of the 'autodidact'.

Of course anyone can be sued for almost any reason... but that aside, there's no mention of 'approved educational institution' requirement for 'fair use' as an educational experience, just as there is no 'approved film critics association' requirement for 'excerpting a work for criticism or comment'.

[David W. Richardson]

And what legal theory would support that?

From the US government pamphlet on the subject, each case may require consideration in and of itself. However there are 4 general considerations listed, such as 'purpose and character of use', 'the nature of the work', 'extent of use', and 'commercial impact on the copyright holder'.

So, if someone made a 'home video' of a 'scene', for the purpose of autodidactic education, posted it for 'review' of how well they performed the exercise, and given the 'character' of the result... and the infinitesimal effect commercially by such an exercise...

I think the court would find in favor of the 'autodidact'.

Of course anyone can be sued for almost any reason... but that aside, there's no mention of 'approved educational institution' requirement for 'fair use' as an educational experience, just as there is no 'approved film critics association' requirement for 'excerpting a work for criticism or comment'.

If you study the Stanford Law website on copyright and fair use, you will see they quite clearly refer to school teachers in a classroom environment.

Here are some other useful tidbits:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
"The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-d.html
"The difficulty in claiming fair use is that there is no way to guarantee that your use will qualify as fair. You may believe that your use qualifies—but, if the copyright owner disagrees, you may have to resolve the dispute in a courtroom. Even if you ultimately persuade the court that your use was in fact a fair use, the expense and time involved in litigation may well outweigh any benefit of using the material in the first place."
"If in doubt about your fair use assessment, consult with a copyright attorney. For information on dealing with attorneys, see Chapter 16, 'Help Beyond This Book.'"

Why is it so hard to just go out and shoot a window, and avoid even the appearance of illegality?

[Michael Carter]

Why is it so hard to just go out and shoot a window, and avoid even the appearance of illegality?

Sheesh - he's shooting a scene from an existing film and you guys are worried a frame grab will cause copyright issues?

[David W. Richardson]

Sheesh - he's shooting a scene from an existing film and you guys are worried a frame grab will cause copyright issues?

Sorry our concern for having intellectual property stolen upsets you. A frame is a photo. Does that make it okay to steal other people's photos?

This is SO simple to do legally. It's not like some majorly impossible thing to film or shoot a still pic of. Anyone with a camera could probably do it tonight without traveling more than a mile from their home. There's just no good reason to steal someone else's image instead.

[Shauno]

Sorry our concern for having intellectual property stolen upsets you. A frame is a photo. Does that make it okay to steal other people's photos?

This is SO simple to do legally. It's not like some majorly impossible thing to film or shoot a still pic of. Anyone with a camera could probably do it tonight without traveling more than a mile from their home. There's just no good reason to steal someone else's image instead.

I'm sorry, but, not one to jump on any kind of bandwagon; however, I believe your ego has got the better of you mate. Using harsh words like steal, simply, legally, so on and so forth; without really knowing (in effect) what you are contextually referring to, well...

I specifically noted in my original post that all copyright issues... well weren't an issue, at all. Rather than take my word, my experience (I only have a few posts anyway), and most of all, totally ignore my core question, en route for your own moral agenda.

Can I stipulate, that copyright, intellectual property issues, laws... etc... is not an issue at all, I won't go into specifics, because, I know for a fact, I do not need to.

Not to get offensive on this subject mate, but as much as you might be right, you are equally as wrong; and to add, that is all beside the point; there is a reason I am using the image, I'm allowed to use the image and if this situation has allowed one or two members to flex their moral core, law awareness and... well, whatever else; then great.

In the meantime, I'd like to thank those who have helped on the issue at hand; helped a lot. It's surely a bit of a challenge, but I'd be more than happy to post results, if people should so wish.

Let me re-iterate; I was posting to see if there was an alternative anyone could think of to shoot this, other than using footage already shot in the original, which I do, in fact, have permission to use.