|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fair use / copyrights
old movie in a documentary I'm currently making. Does that constitue fair use, or would I need to get permission? In article <1164724697.055895.176***@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
adri***@yahoo.com wrote: > I was curious.. I was thinking of using a 4-second clip from a 20-year You probably need to get permission. Think about it this way, if you did > old movie in a documentary I'm currently making. Does that constitue > fair use, or would I need to get permission? a movie and 20 year's from now someone wanted to use a piece of it would you want to be asked? > You probably need to get permission. Think about it this way, if you did As long as they weren't using it in a way that was destructive or> a movie and 20 year's from now someone wanted to use a piece of it would > you want to be asked? critical of me, I wouldn't really care.. and also assuming they knew how to get into contact with me. That is my issue. I don't mind seeking permission, but can't figure out who to contact to get it. In article <1164741273.230945.25***@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
adri***@yahoo.com wrote: > I don't mind Since it's still under copyright you've got to ask first.> seeking permission, but can't figure out who to contact to get it. On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:02:58 -0600, timepixdc <timepi***@aol.comx>
wrote: >In article <1164741273.230945.25***@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Not true. "Fair Use" exemptions in many countries' copyright acts> adri***@yahoo.com wrote: > >> I don't mind >> seeking permission, but can't figure out who to contact to get it. > >Since it's still under copyright you've got to ask first. allow the use of the material *without* having to ask permission. That's the whole point: you *don't* have to spend time and effort tracking down a copyright holder to ask first. Of course, that laudable aim has been completely perverted by the system -- just check out Chapter Seven of Lawrence Lessig's book, "Free Culture", for an amazing example -- and there really is NO SUCH THING as "Fair Use". At least in the US. In article <flvsm25kspvq1q5v632fbakdgave27l***@4ax.com>,
Karyudo <karyudo_use***@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:02:58 -0600, timepixdc <timepi***@aol.comx> Does it fall under any of the following (from teh US Copyright Office)?> wrote: > > >In article <1164741273.230945.25***@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, > > adri***@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> I don't mind > >> seeking permission, but can't figure out who to contact to get it. > > > >Since it's still under copyright you've got to ask first. > > Not true. "Fair Use" exemptions in many countries' copyright acts > allow the use of the material *without* having to ask permission. "...quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported. If not, you have to ask first. > That's the whole point: you *don't* have to spend time and effort You do, except in certain limited circumstances.> tracking down a copyright holder to ask first. >..and there really is NO SUCH That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those examples of "fair > THING as "Fair Use". At least in the US. use"... It also says, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. " Note the word "clearly". On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:07:51 -0600, timepixdc <timepi***@aol.comx>
wrote: Show quoteHide quote >Does it fall under any of the following (from teh US Copyright Office)? Noted. And it is exactly that wording that ensures there really is NO> >"...quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of >illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or >technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's >observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work >parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a >news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace >part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small >part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in >legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and >fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located >in the scene of an event being reported. > >If not, you have to ask first. > >>..and there really is NO SUCH >> THING as "Fair Use". At least in the US. > >That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those examples of "fair >use"... > >It also says, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of >copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use >would clearly apply to the situation. " > >Note the word "clearly". fair use. If you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend reading the nightmare scenario reported in Lessig's "Free Culture". I think any reasonable individual would expect that an interview with someone that had a TV on in the background would be fair use of the incidental stuff on the TV -- even a lawyer would so argue -- but the reality is that nobody can trust that, and studios like Fox have very, very deep pockets. Meaning even if they're in the wrong, and "fair use" does "clearly" apply, it won't matter, because any lawsuit can be dragged out just long enough to crush the "infringers". Karyudo wrote:
> That thought would never even cross my mind and given such an example I> I think > any reasonable individual would expect that an interview with someone > that had a TV on > in the background would be fair use of the incidental > stuff on the TV might blur out the TV screen, or even replace what was playing with a "safe" clip. Am I really so unreasonable? Dave On 11/30/2006, davesvi***@aol.com posted this:
> Karyudo wrote: Quoting from timepixdc's post earlier in this thread,>> >> I think >> any reasonable individual would expect that an interview with someone >> that had a TV on >> in the background would be fair use of the incidental >> stuff on the TV > > That thought would never even cross my mind and given such an example I > might blur out the TV screen, or even replace what was playing with a > "safe" clip. Am I really so unreasonable? > > Dave "[fair use includes] fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported". IANAL, but I sure *wish* it were so. -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") In article <leutm2pip81o6o0q4e2bgqgbciem7s5***@4ax.com>,
Karyudo <karyudo_use***@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote: Show quoteHide quote > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:07:51 -0600, timepixdc <timepi***@aol.comx> To repeat: That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those > wrote: > > >Does it fall under any of the following (from teh US Copyright Office)? > > > >"...quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of > >illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or > >technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's > >observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work > >parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a > >news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace > >part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small > >part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in > >legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and > >fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located > >in the scene of an event being reported. > > > >If not, you have to ask first. > > > >>..and there really is NO SUCH > >> THING as "Fair Use". At least in the US. > > > >That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those examples of "fair > >use"... > > > >It also says, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of > >copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use > >would clearly apply to the situation. " > > > >Note the word "clearly". > > Noted. And it is exactly that wording that ensures there really is NO > fair use. examples of "fair use"... On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:31:41 -0600, timepixdc <timepi***@aol.comx>
wrote: Show quoteHide quote >In article <leutm2pip81o6o0q4e2bgqgbciem7s5***@4ax.com>, Those are airy-fairy examples that could still end up costing an> Karyudo <karyudo_use***@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:07:51 -0600, timepixdc <timepi***@aol.comx> >> wrote: >> >> >Does it fall under any of the following (from teh US Copyright Office)? >> > >> >"...quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of >> >illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or >> >technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's >> >observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work >> >parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a >> >news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace >> >part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small >> >part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in >> >legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and >> >fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located >> >in the scene of an event being reported. >> > >> >If not, you have to ask first. >> > >> >>..and there really is NO SUCH >> >> THING as "Fair Use". At least in the US. >> > >> >That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those examples of "fair >> >use"... >> > >> >It also says, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of >> >copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use >> >would clearly apply to the situation. " >> > >> >Note the word "clearly". >> >> Noted. And it is exactly that wording that ensures there really is NO >> fair use. > >To repeat: That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those >examples of "fair use"... "infringer" dearly, even if after the lengthy trial it ends up the rights holder was wrong to try to sue. It is pretty clear you have never tried to exercise any of those "fair use" examples in practice. To be fair, neither have I -- but I at least have read a couple of horror stories of people who have. "Fair use" *may* keep rights holders from suing "infringers", but it does not protect "infringers" if rights holders do decide to take legal action. It's a great idea, but it's toothless. Karyudo wrote:
> "Fair use" *may* keep rights holders from suing "infringers", but it The "fair use" topic comes up pretty often in these groups, so I> does not protect "infringers" if rights holders do decide to take > legal action. It's a great idea, but it's toothless. have told this one before. For a while I worked on some shows for a Cable Acess station. Part of the orientation to new producers included the station management take on "fair use". Station policy: If you think something can be used under "Fair Use", "Do not use it". If you don't have a staff of lawyers, why not work around the possible problem. If a CNN news broadcast were seen on an incidental TV, one could make a Fake CZN station clip and replace the potential problem. Dave In article <7ok0n25tqlomfnde9e33jlcb2eavcq1***@4ax.com>,
Karyudo <karyudo_use***@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote: Show quoteHide quote > >> >Does it fall under any of the following (from the US Copyright Office)? Which MUST be why they are examples given by the US Copyright Office...> >> > > >> >"...quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of > >> >illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or > >> >technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's > >> >observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work > >> >parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a > >> >news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace > >> >part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small > >> >part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in > >> >legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and > >> >fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located > >> >in the scene of an event being reported. > >> > > >> >If not, you have to ask first. > >> > > >> >>..and there really is NO SUCH > >> >> THING as "Fair Use". At least in the US. > >> > > >> >That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those examples of "fair > >> >use"... > >> > > >> >It also says, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of > >> >copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use > >> >would clearly apply to the situation. " > >> > > >> >Note the word "clearly". > >> > >> Noted. And it is exactly that wording that ensures there really is NO > >> fair use. > > > >To repeat: That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those > >examples of "fair use"... > > Those are airy-fairy examples On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:58:22 -0600, timepixdc <timepi***@aol.comx>
wrote: Show quoteHide quote >In article <7ok0n25tqlomfnde9e33jlcb2eavcq1***@4ax.com>, OK, what's your damn point? Mine is that the examples are useless, and> Karyudo <karyudo_use***@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote: > >> >> >Does it fall under any of the following (from the US Copyright Office)? >> >> > >> >> >"...quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of >> >> >illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or >> >> >technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's >> >> >observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work >> >> >parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a >> >> >news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace >> >> >part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small >> >> >part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in >> >> >legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and >> >> >fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located >> >> >in the scene of an event being reported. >> >> > >> >> >If not, you have to ask first. >> >> > >> >> >>..and there really is NO SUCH >> >> >> THING as "Fair Use". At least in the US. >> >> > >> >> >That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those examples of "fair >> >> >use"... >> >> > >> >> >It also says, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of >> >> >copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use >> >> >would clearly apply to the situation. " >> >> > >> >> >Note the word "clearly". >> >> >> >> Noted. And it is exactly that wording that ensures there really is NO >> >> fair use. >> > >> >To repeat: That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those >> >examples of "fair use"... >> >> Those are airy-fairy examples > >Which MUST be why they are examples given by the US Copyright Office... don't prevent people following the examples from being sued, and litigated into compliance with whatever the rights holder says, or oblivion, whichever comes first. In article <t2b2n2t6cr539n7k2h1c52ibg22m6bt***@4ax.com>,
Karyudo <karyudo_use***@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote: Show quoteHide quote > >> >> >Does it fall under any of the following (from the US Copyright That MUST be why the US Copyright Office (the government body that > >> >> >Office)? > >> >> > > >> >> >"...quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of > >> >> >illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or > >> >> >technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's > >> >> >observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work > >> >> >parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in > >> >> >a > >> >> >news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to > >> >> >replace > >> >> >part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a > >> >> >small > >> >> >part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in > >> >> >legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and > >> >> >fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located > >> >> >in the scene of an event being reported. > >> >> > > >> >> >If not, you have to ask first. > >> >> > > >> >> >>..and there really is NO SUCH > >> >> >> THING as "Fair Use". At least in the US. > >> >> > > >> >> >That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those examples of > >> >> >"fair > >> >> >use"... > >> >> > > >> >> >It also says, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of > >> >> >copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use > >> >> >would clearly apply to the situation. " > >> >> > > >> >> >Note the word "clearly". > >> >> > >> >> Noted. And it is exactly that wording that ensures there really is NO > >> >> fair use. > >> > > >> >To repeat: That MUST be why the US Copyright Office offers those > >> >examples of "fair use"... > >> > >> Those are airy-fairy examples > > > >Which MUST be why they are examples given by the US Copyright Office... > > OK, what's your damn point? Mine is that the examples are useless oversees such things) offers those as examples of "fair use"... <adri***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164724697.055895.176160@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... There's absolutely no way to tell without knowing the nature of the clip, >I was curious.. I was thinking of using a 4-second clip from a 20-year > old movie in a documentary I'm currently making. Does that constitue > fair use, or would I need to get permission? the documentary and where and under what circumstances it will be shown.  
Other interesting topics
SONY DCR TRV27E Shutter speed and Gain?
deceptive ad on videoguys.com? Digital leap? DVD Camcorders is this really a digital ccd camera? what computer features to look for- for editing video files? My first camcorder? Dazzle DV-Bridge Installation Problem Help: GY-DV5100U or GY-HD110? magazines and websites? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
