Copyright Law from Duke
- Thread starter yagfxg33k
- Start date
Alex DePew
Señor Schmarty Pants
It was a good read. But it seems to gloss over the fact that if you want to try and claim fair use you have to be willing to go to court. And I bet it is EXTREMELY rare that the judge will make the company pay your fees (like the one case they mentioned) IF (and this is a huge IF) you are found innocent. So they say that we shouldn't be worried filmmakers. That article didn't do anything to assuage my fears that I could be sued for copyright or trademark violation for showing any one of a million things that are EVERYWHERE and are protected. And wether or not I am in my rights to show it, I will still have to defend myself at the cost of huge legal expenses.
It tries to show that the copyright system we have is only sliding down the wrong path. I submit that it is totally f'd up. Fox wanted $10,000.00 because The Simpson's was playing on a TV in the background of a film for a few seconds and it had nothing to do with The Simpson's? That is just outright bull.
They picked the easiest subject to defend fair use too. Documentaries have more protections built into copyright law. Commercial films are way more exposed to litigation. It boggles my mind. I don't live an overly cautious life. I tell off color jokes at work (at a law firm no less!) to people I know won't mind. I have done other things which are less than along the straight and narrow and I plan to keep doing them. But this issue has me paranoid.
There is so much that just shows up in a film. Lets say I film in my own room which I rent. Do I have to get permission from the owner? From the city? Do I have to blur all the logos like my Sony monitor? Do I have to remove or blur all artowork in my room? Do I have to remove my Ikea furniture because it is distinctive? What about all the books I have displayed? If they are visible could the author and publisher sue? Are these all incidental? But more importantly can I be sued? That is the question. Not whether or not I am right. But can I be sued? Unless in every case in which I am sued I have my legal expenses paid and it doesn't bankrupt me while in the process of trying to defend myself (which would be about 10 hours of a lawyers time) I can't afford to be too careful.
Sorry for the long winded rant. I am not upset with the people who put together that article. It was well presented and clear. I just needed to vent some frustration at the state of our copyright and trademark laws. I know they are neccessary but they have become ridiculous. Corporations (Disney I'm looking your way) control the laws that are created and the artist don't have a voice that can rival such huge political clout. I live in NYC and I fear shooting outside in the wonderful citycape for fear of not getting all the permissions neccessary. But I'm going to do it anyway. I will be careful but not so much so as to prevent me fdrom getting the shots I want. I will not be caged by the law.
It tries to show that the copyright system we have is only sliding down the wrong path. I submit that it is totally f'd up. Fox wanted $10,000.00 because The Simpson's was playing on a TV in the background of a film for a few seconds and it had nothing to do with The Simpson's? That is just outright bull.
They picked the easiest subject to defend fair use too. Documentaries have more protections built into copyright law. Commercial films are way more exposed to litigation. It boggles my mind. I don't live an overly cautious life. I tell off color jokes at work (at a law firm no less!) to people I know won't mind. I have done other things which are less than along the straight and narrow and I plan to keep doing them. But this issue has me paranoid.
There is so much that just shows up in a film. Lets say I film in my own room which I rent. Do I have to get permission from the owner? From the city? Do I have to blur all the logos like my Sony monitor? Do I have to remove or blur all artowork in my room? Do I have to remove my Ikea furniture because it is distinctive? What about all the books I have displayed? If they are visible could the author and publisher sue? Are these all incidental? But more importantly can I be sued? That is the question. Not whether or not I am right. But can I be sued? Unless in every case in which I am sued I have my legal expenses paid and it doesn't bankrupt me while in the process of trying to defend myself (which would be about 10 hours of a lawyers time) I can't afford to be too careful.
Sorry for the long winded rant. I am not upset with the people who put together that article. It was well presented and clear. I just needed to vent some frustration at the state of our copyright and trademark laws. I know they are neccessary but they have become ridiculous. Corporations (Disney I'm looking your way) control the laws that are created and the artist don't have a voice that can rival such huge political clout. I live in NYC and I fear shooting outside in the wonderful citycape for fear of not getting all the permissions neccessary. But I'm going to do it anyway. I will be careful but not so much so as to prevent me fdrom getting the shots I want. I will not be caged by the law.
GenJerDan
Veteran
Alex DePew said:
You know how many times this specific issue shows up on the Copyright pages and the USC?
No, really. Do you know?
Cause I can't find any sepcific mention of it (things visible in a motion picture).
They address sound recordings, derivative works, samples, internet distribution, satellite & other retransmissions, digital copies, everything under the sun...except motion pictures.
You'd think, after a century or so, there'd be a section or two about it.
Alex DePew
Señor Schmarty Pants
GenJerDan said:
I really don't know. And USC? I'm guessing your not talking about the University of Southern California. There was a link to an article by a law firm regarding this issue. I asked the question in regards to a trademark and NoahK sent me this link which was helpful.
http://www.piercegorman.com/Clearance_Procedures.html
GenJerDan
Veteran
Here's part of the actual text on the Trademark subject:
"(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive..."
So...by what stretch of whose imagination is a Coke machine on the back wall of a scene likely to cause confusion, cause a mistake, or deceive someone? No viewer would even notice the damn thing, unless you called attention to it.
Oh.
USC = United States Code. The actual federal law for everything. (Like the banner at the start of DVDs....you know..."Title 17, Section 501...$250,000...jail...etc.)
"(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive..."
So...by what stretch of whose imagination is a Coke machine on the back wall of a scene likely to cause confusion, cause a mistake, or deceive someone? No viewer would even notice the damn thing, unless you called attention to it.
Oh.
USC = United States Code. The actual federal law for everything. (Like the banner at the start of DVDs....you know..."Title 17, Section 501...$250,000...jail...etc.)
Alex DePew
Señor Schmarty Pants
I was actually able to find a case that supported filmmakers.
http://www.marklitwak.com/downloads/ProductsAsStars.pdf
In it there is a case referenced where Wham-O sued the producers of Dicky Roberts: Child Star because he used their Slip-n-Slide without authorization. The case was thrown out. As was their trademark infringement and dilution claim.
So it turns out that I can be less paranoid. That is a huge weight off my shoulders. The article actually led me to think it might not be impossible to get some help with craft services by product placement. Maybe when I have a bigger production than no-budget. But it's worth a shot now. And it is good to build a knowledge base of how to go about asking for in kind product placement.
http://www.marklitwak.com/downloads/ProductsAsStars.pdf
In it there is a case referenced where Wham-O sued the producers of Dicky Roberts: Child Star because he used their Slip-n-Slide without authorization. The case was thrown out.
As was their trademark infringement and dilution claim.So it turns out that I can be less paranoid. That is a huge weight off my shoulders. The article actually led me to think it might not be impossible to get some help with craft services by product placement. Maybe when I have a bigger production than no-budget. But it's worth a shot now. And it is good to build a knowledge base of how to go about asking for in kind product placement.