Legal issues and parodys

Barry_Green said:
You have to be really careful with that. The rules for news crews are very different than the rules for commercial film producers! People control the right to their own images in commercial productions, but news coverage gets certain exemptions. For example, a news photog might get a shot of Tom Cruise walking into a Scientology center and be able to air that, but if you tried to pull a "Bowfinger" you'd find out real quickly that the same rules don't apply!
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!
 
Barry... always a fountain of information. Thanks bro. This is a murky area for all of us.... but in Barry we trust! I will take this and run with it. Maybe it did seem a bit too good to be true.


Hope everyone has a great holiday.
 
Fair Use

Fair Use

Justyn said:
[...] This is a murky area for all of us [...]
Click to expand...
I recently heard during the May 19, 2006 episode of On The Media (an amazing show produced by WNYC and available as a podcast if you're not familiar with it) Brooke Gladstone talking with James Boyle, a professor of law at Duke University and co-author of "Tales from the Public Domain: Bound By Law," a comic book about fair use that's available for free on the Duke University Law School website. Boyle argues that copyright holders have been promoting "a permissions culture," leading filmmakers to ignore or be afraid of exercizing their fair use rights. The show segments and the book are both very interesting.
 
FatBird19 said:
Can you sell a parody? Can you make profit off one?
Click to expand...

Of course!

Look.

A Copyright is not total protection or prohibition of the use of someones material.

It is a legal and somewhat of a social contract that is used as a basis for a claim and any subsequent action to protect that claim.

If you have material that is Copyrighted and you do not protect it by going after those that you believe violate your Copyright, it is worthless.

If on the other hand you go after someone who you believe has violated your Copyright and you loose, you've unnecessarily expended resources.

As to what constitutes parody and what is just blatant infringement.... shades of gray.
 
cinemakinoeye said:
I recently heard during the May 19, 2006 episode of On The Media (an amazing show produced by WNYC and available as a podcast if you're not familiar with it) Brooke Gladstone talking with James Boyle, a professor of law at Duke University and co-author of "Tales from the Public Domain: Bound By Law," a comic book about fair use that's available for free on the Duke University Law School website. Boyle argues that copyright holders have been promoting "a permissions culture," leading filmmakers to ignore or be afraid of exercizing their fair use rights. The show segments and the book are both very interesting.
Click to expand...

Nice Links!!!
 
Barry_Green said:
Weird Al Yankovic has made a career off of doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

Wait, that reminds me, i heard somewhere that he tried for years to get permission to do an Eminem song and he wouldn't let him, even thought it's parody.

Whats up?
 
Parody basically equals fair game, but Al always tries to get cooperation/permission first. Something went south when he did "Amish Paradise" though...
 
alright. Cool.
Well I'm hoping that this'll go ok for me. Here I go. :)

I'll probably consult a lawyer though anyways.
 
FatBird19 said:
[...] I'll probably consult a lawyer though anyways.
Click to expand...
Probably the wise thing to do if you want to chart a course for your project. My experience with entertainment lawyers is they will often take some issue that filmmakers commonly believe should be done one way and they will show you how to do it another way given the specific nature of your project. Navigating the legal lanscape requires strategy and tactics, especially when you're on a tight budget and need to be ultra smart about everything rather than throwing money at problems.
 
Justyn said:
crazy bizness we are in. Again some good info. I think I'll pick up that book and read those articles...


The one thing I think that is so unique now if that you go to a concert.. They say no flash photos and everyone in the crowd is shooting it on their phones.. recording it.. whatever. They now classify it as NO professional set-ups, but there is so much stuff going on and media rights managment that it's a changing all the time.

I found out through a local news organization.. that you do have the right to use footage on a location or an event until they ask you to leave... From there you do get into a pickle.. but up till that you can go and be on ya way with it.
.
Click to expand...

I found a good common sence article about where you can shoot and not.

Download the pdf for some good information.

It dosen't cover parody which is a little off-topic here but still some good info. It sounds like it is geared mostly to still photography, but the same rules would apply to video. What is boils down to is you Can shoot almost anywhere, just be careful how you use it.
 
If you're not going to make any money off of it, you can do what you want. It only get's legal the day you get paid for it.

The director does not hold the movie rights.
 
BenB said:
If you're not going to make any money off of it, you can do what you want. It only get's legal the day you get paid for it.

The director does not hold the movie rights.
Click to expand...

??????????????


I think you might mean if it's not for public display or consumption.

Whether you make money, loose money, break even, is irrelevant.



Example?


Napster... Limewire...
 
BenB said:
If you're not going to make any money off of it, you can do what you want. It only get's legal the day you get paid for it.

This seems to be a prevalent idea, but is wrong.

Many craftsman in the movie making system are interested in the artistic side of things, but studios are in the business of making financial investments and getting a return on those investments.

It's not that they don't want you to use their material, it's that they want you to charge for it so that they can get their part of that use.

From their point of view,
WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THAT THEIR PROPERTY HAS NO VALUE?

When YOU decide you are going to use or show their material for "free" not for profit then you have put yourself in the position of deciding for them that THEIR property "HAS NO VALUE".

There is no way any property owner of anything is going to sit back and allow other people to give away their property for free WITHOUT EVEN ASKING PERMISSION.

Certain exemptions apply as noted previously. Well known shows like "Eyes on the Prize" that have copyright problems fall into a little bit of a limbo area. It's true that they provide important insight into our history and culture. Yet they are also entertainment pieces that become profit making entities in their own right, unlike most news pieces which usually don't see the light of day again after the 11:00pm newscast.

For entry level filmmakers, copyright should not be seen as a tragic, overbearing injustice. It should be seen as an incentive to be less derivative in your own work and create your own "intellectual property".

Then you would have your own stake in the system and your own property to protect.
Click to expand...
 
BenB said:
If you're not going to make any money off of it, you can do what you want. It only get's legal the day you get paid for it.

The director does not hold the movie rights.
Click to expand...

WOW! Dangerously inaccurate: First, the owner of the rights will move for a preliminary injunction to stop the use and will get it before the facts are even disputed. (the burden of proof being low). Second, they will have the ability to recoup actual or compensatory damages (which would be difficult here but not impossible) or (in most case) statutory damages that look beyond profit. If the infringement of the rights is willful, rather than an honest mistake, there are punies at the judges discretion. You will also likely pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiff and most likely receive a permanent injunction of your work. And they WILL bring suit to deter others in very small cases (not always, but they have more money than you so don't risk it.) Hopefully they will just ask you to remove and you will be smart enough to comply quickly. (SNL skit on youtube)

To find out who owns the rights, you need to research the "chain of title" of the film. This is a collection of k's and documents that show any change in ownership from the films idea stage to the final film. I recommend you get the aid of an attorney. You will need a "good" chain of title in your own work, meaning free of the issues we speak of here and many others, if you every hope to get distribution.

Always remember, you don't want to break a law willfully even if it doesn't have a profit motive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top