Now which one of these is "risky"?
It's amazing what they'll sell on eBay
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Unfortunately, copyright is much more complex than simply taking a photo and assigning copyright to it or deciding what is risky and what is not.
There are two essential issues:
1) Ownership of the photograph/motion picture film
2) The subject of the photograph/motion picture film
Take the following example. I am walking down Vine Street in West Hollywood and I see Jack Nicholson beating in the hood of taxi cab with his 3 wood. I take a picture.
Now, sure I own the photo but I can not do anything with it for any commercial and/or exhibitional purpose without Mr. Nicholson's permission. I will always keep the copyright to that image, and if I sell it, say, to People Magazine, by purchasing it, they have also purchased copyright. I may choose to only license the photo to them, and retain copyright for myself.
It makes no difference if it is Jack Nicholson or some girl on the street. You must have permission from the subject of the photograph/film in order to be able to exhibit it or conduct commericial transactions.
If, however, the photograph is of something like the Sears Tower in Chicago, or the CN Tower in Toronto, it is unrealistic (though perhaps technically correct) for the courts to enforce this as a violation of copyright.
(Nonetheless, in some places, like the province of Ontario for example, I think that photographers of people in public places, do not require their permission if the work is not intended for commerical distribution and/or exhibition.
In some cases, when the Hollywood Stars turn and wave and smile at the paparazzi, their consent is considered to be implicit. It would be unrealistic, again, to expect each one of those photographers to contact each and every star they take a photograph of, because consent has already been granted, and signed off on by the stars and their entourages by agreeing to participate/attend that particualr event.)
Look at an epsiode of Seinfeld, where George explains the origins of Festivus (I think this is the one). That super 8 footage of him as an eight-year old surely came out of a stock footage house. If the person who initially made the recording, and the subjects of the motion picture film discover that their images and property have been used without their permission, technically, copyright has been violated.
The litigiousness, at least of North American society, has produced this culture of copyright-ownsership-infringement-paranoia.
Furthermore, we live in a society where privacy is perpetually violated by image recording devices. Think about it. How many times a day do you think you've been photographed?...At the bank, at the mall, in the subway, by somebody's cellphone, a documentary filmmaker on the street, at the hockey game, as you leave the parking garage etc......
There are two essential issues:
1) Ownership of the photograph/motion picture film
2) The subject of the photograph/motion picture film
Take the following example. I am walking down Vine Street in West Hollywood and I see Jack Nicholson beating in the hood of taxi cab with his 3 wood. I take a picture.
Now, sure I own the photo but I can not do anything with it for any commercial and/or exhibitional purpose without Mr. Nicholson's permission. I will always keep the copyright to that image, and if I sell it, say, to People Magazine, by purchasing it, they have also purchased copyright. I may choose to only license the photo to them, and retain copyright for myself.
It makes no difference if it is Jack Nicholson or some girl on the street. You must have permission from the subject of the photograph/film in order to be able to exhibit it or conduct commericial transactions.
If, however, the photograph is of something like the Sears Tower in Chicago, or the CN Tower in Toronto, it is unrealistic (though perhaps technically correct) for the courts to enforce this as a violation of copyright.
(Nonetheless, in some places, like the province of Ontario for example, I think that photographers of people in public places, do not require their permission if the work is not intended for commerical distribution and/or exhibition.
In some cases, when the Hollywood Stars turn and wave and smile at the paparazzi, their consent is considered to be implicit. It would be unrealistic, again, to expect each one of those photographers to contact each and every star they take a photograph of, because consent has already been granted, and signed off on by the stars and their entourages by agreeing to participate/attend that particualr event.)
Look at an epsiode of Seinfeld, where George explains the origins of Festivus (I think this is the one). That super 8 footage of him as an eight-year old surely came out of a stock footage house. If the person who initially made the recording, and the subjects of the motion picture film discover that their images and property have been used without their permission, technically, copyright has been violated.
The litigiousness, at least of North American society, has produced this culture of copyright-ownsership-infringement-paranoia.
Furthermore, we live in a society where privacy is perpetually violated by image recording devices. Think about it. How many times a day do you think you've been photographed?...At the bank, at the mall, in the subway, by somebody's cellphone, a documentary filmmaker on the street, at the hockey game, as you leave the parking garage etc......
Last edited by Woland on Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
_____________________________
If life were easy and not so fast, I wouldn't think about the past.
--Phish
If life were easy and not so fast, I wouldn't think about the past.
--Phish
If that's true then how come there are tons of tabloid magazines filled with embarraing / bad pictures that movie stars would NEVER want to be seen by the public?.....just go to your local supermarket check out isle.....I don't think any star would agree to have some of those photographers anywhere NEAR some of those circumstances they were caught in....Woland wrote:Now, sure I own the photo but I can not do anything with it for any commercial and/or exhibitional purpose without Mr. Nicholson's permission.
What about that picture of Nick Nolte when he got caught driving drunk?.....did he agree to that?
-
Alex
I'm not sure I agree with the Jack Nicholson example. I think Public figures can be photographed in public and sold to whomever wants the footage. However, if the footage is altered or made to imply that the celebrity was doing anything different from what they were actually doing, then you probably would be in very hot legal water.Woland wrote: There are two essential issues:
1) Ownership of the photograph/motion picture film
2) The subject of the photograph/motion picture film
Take the following example. I am walking down Vine Street in West Hollywood and I see Jack Nicholson beating in the hood of taxi cab with his 3 wood. I take a picture.
Now, sure I own the photo but I can not do anything with it for any commercial and/or exhibitional purpose without Mr. Nicholson's permission. I will always keep the copyright to that image, and if I sell it, say, to People Magazine, by purchasing it, they have also purchased copyright. I may choose to only license the photo to them, and retain copyright for myself.
It makes no difference if it is Jack Nicholson or some girl on the street. You must have permission from the subject of the photograph/film in order to be able to exhibit it or conduct commericial transactions.
If, however, the photograph is of something like the Sears Tower in Chicago, or the CN Tower in Toronto, it is unrealistic (though perhaps technically correct) for the courts to enforce this as a violation of copyright.
So, If I overlay the sound of a screaming women coming from the car that Jack was allegedly hitting with a golf club, I need his permission to show it because I have altered the reality of it. If I drolly announce, "and there's Jack Nicholson hitting a car with a golf club:, then I probably could get away with that without Jack's permission, but if you think about it, without knowing why he was doing it, it's kind of not that interesting.
As for the buildings, again, some buidlings are now COPYRIGHTED and if you film it as a background scape and then use it in your movie, you could be sued!
The building is probably not copyright, but trademark. That's where I think things have gotten out of hand. If you open up the dictionary, words have become trademark, and then those trademarks become part of a copyright when used as the trademark. So you are actually probably sued for trademark infringement if that is the case. :?Alex wrote:As for the buildings, again, some buidlings are now COPYRIGHTED and if you film it as a background scape and then use it in your movie, you could be sued!
In all likelihood Nick Nolte would not want that photo released, or chances are any others without his permission. It doesn't necessarily mean people or the press will abide by what is considered "legal." Tabloids are considered press, and in some cases there are special limitations on the extent of copyright "violation" and what they can get 'away with."
Compliance is not a necessary result of regulation and/or legislation. The tabloids break the law every time they print stories and photos, and this is why they are so often in court.
Compliance is not a necessary result of regulation and/or legislation. The tabloids break the law every time they print stories and photos, and this is why they are so often in court.
_____________________________
If life were easy and not so fast, I wouldn't think about the past.
--Phish
If life were easy and not so fast, I wouldn't think about the past.
--Phish
The Tabloids get sued for defamation of character, slander, and photos taken in private places.Woland wrote:The tabloids break the law every time they print stories and photos, and this is why they are so often in court.
They don't get sued for taking public pictures. Celebrities in public spaces are fair game.
Tod
-
Alex
There's this great big barrier reef in the media that allows news programming huge lattitude whereas a filmmaker MUST get all kinds of releases for the same piece of footage IF they are incorporating it into a story rather than reporting on the event as news.
I think Rodney King had to give permission to Spike Lee when Spike Lee used footage from the Rodney King versus the police incident even though news agencies are free to use the footage to report on the 10th anniversary, 15th anniversary, etc.
However, when the news programming does stories on how fat society is becoming, they usually never show faces. And stories involving kids under 18 usually don't show faces.
I think Rodney King had to give permission to Spike Lee when Spike Lee used footage from the Rodney King versus the police incident even though news agencies are free to use the footage to report on the 10th anniversary, 15th anniversary, etc.
However, when the news programming does stories on how fat society is becoming, they usually never show faces. And stories involving kids under 18 usually don't show faces.
-
Actor
- Senior member
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:12 am
- Real name: Sterling Prophet
- Location: Ohio, USA
Clearance and Copyright by Michael C. Donaldson is the definitve American filmmaker's guide to American copyright law.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 2-0606618-
The book covers only American copyright law. Among the things I have gleaned from it are:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 2-0606618-
The book covers only American copyright law. Among the things I have gleaned from it are:
- Copyright cannot be sold, only licensed. However, that license my be exclusive and for eternity.
- Absolutely anything created before 1923 is in the public domain.
- Dead people have no rights. You do not need permission to use images of people who have passed on. Their families cannot sue in their behalf. In the case of Mr. Nicholson, the taxi, the golf club, etc., you can use the images with impunity as soon as he dies. Please note, I am NOT suggesting that you kill Mr. Nicholson. Although that approach would work as far as copyright is concerned it has other serious legal disadvantages.