|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Copyright violation & the financial damage it can do
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-23-2003 02:12 AM
William asks:
quote:
How is this [the need for a signed release by 'talent' appearing in a photograph] possible? These 2 statements contradict each other. If all photography is copy righted then why ask for signed release.
Because photography isn't the only product in which copyright subsists. If the creation or exploitation of creative work A involves an act restricted by copyright in respect of creative work B, you need to clear both.
The most extreme example I've come across in relation to this is sports footage. We once had an enquiry from a local broadcaster wanting to use footage of a 1973 football match in a news broadcasts (one of the players involved had just died). Thanks to contracts entered into and rights reserved, we worked out that, potentially, the user would have to obtain permission from (i) the producer of the footage, (ii) both football clubs, (iii) the Football Association, (iv) the Professional Footballers' Association, and (v) possibly up to 21 players' agents. Needless to say, in the end they didn't bother!
The other thing to bear in mind, of course, is that copyright does not last forever. In most circumstances in the UK the term is 70 years, though I gather that in the US, the Sonny Bono Act extended that to 90, largely thanks to intense political lobbying by Disney, who did not want to see Mickey Mouse (plus associated image exploitation rights) enter the public domain. But again, there's an issue of multiple rights. For example, in the case of pre-1932 material which has been archivally preserved (e.g. nitrate originals we sent to a lab and had polyester safety dupes made) it is standard practice for the archive to claim copyright in the content on the basis of it being a restoration, which cost money, and is thus a creative work in its own right. To my knowledge this principle has never been tested in court, though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-24-2003 01:57 AM
quote:
Actually, only the © symbol and/or the word 'Copyright' are necessary. For recordings, a letter P in a circle is used in lieu of the ©.
Doing this in itself (in UK law, at least) doesn't establish ownership of copyright for sure, unless you can prove the point in time at which the copyright period started. For example, in the case of a film (in most circumstances):
quote:
13.—(1) Copyright in a sound recording or film expires—
(a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is made, or
(b) if it is released before the end of that period, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is released.
The definition of 'released' has been established by case law to mean first broadcast or exploited for financial gain (e.g. shown in a cinema or sold/hired on video).
In order to establish your ownership of copyright in law, you need to be able to prove when that 70-year clock started ticking (if indeed it has) and that it hasn't run out yet. When we recently produced a compilation video for sale which contained a significant amount of original footage (interviews, mainly), I followed the advice of an author friend, and posted a copy to myself with a © notice on the sleeve and the cassette itself. The package is now being kept, with seal and postmark intact, and I understand that this is routinely accepted by courts as proof of the date of production, should it ever be needed. We also bought a copy from a local store and kept the receipt (with the title printed on it), to prove the date of publication.
So writing '© Joe Bloggs, 2003' on your photo, video or whatever serves notice that you assert ownership of copyright, but should it come to a legal dispute, you might need to be able to prove that the date is valid.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-24-2003 05:57 AM
A postmarked and sealed package would not in itself 'ensure copyright' in the sense of proving who owns(ed) it, but simply that the intellectual property inside did exist, in that form, on the date of the postmark. It would therefore establish whether copyright had expired or not, but that in itself would not prove that you owned the copyright.
So in itself, the 'post it to yourself' trick is legally baseless. But if a dispute arises as to whether a work is still in copyright or not, I am told that it is a legally accepted way of establishing the date of creation. This could be especially useful for categories where the period is much shorter: for example, copyright in the typographical arrangement of a published work only lasts for 25 years. Let's say that a case arose involving copyright violation in a printed text: the author and/or publisher alleges that the actual text content was copied illegally (in which the term is 70 years), but the defence argues that the text pre-dated the publisher's edition, is out of copyright, and that all (s)he copied was the printed edition, in which the term is only 25. A sealed, postmarked copy of the text, in a different edition to the disputed one which is demonstrably older than 25 years but not older than 70, would, when opened in court, prove the plaintiff's case. But all that would prove is that copyright existed; it would not prove who the rightful owner of that copyright is, which would (if disputed) have to be considered as a separate issue.
The person who told me this is a published crime novelist who in turn was given the advice by a professional body she belongs to, so I guess it must have some basis in fact. No mention of it in Kamina's book on film copyright, though this practice is probably irrelevant in the case of a theatrically distributed film, where documentary evidence of the date of the first public screening at which an admission fee is charged would serve the same purpose. I can't see myself posting 10 transit cases full of 70mm, somehow... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic