Another Copyright Question

[bcahill009]

First of all, Hello. This is my first week on and first post.
I have been on non-stop since I found it and have been learning a lot from reading what others, wiser than me, have to say. So thank you.
My question is in regards to copyrighted material. I am college student and doing a short film for an independent study class, where my professor and I have written a short together, and it is my job to do the rest (directing, editing, dp, ect). Our short takes much of it's theme and some dialogue from the Ted Hughes poem "Crow's Fall". Also I was planning a shot of my lead character stumbling across the book and having a shot of it's cover. I am doing this for school so I know there are a different set of rules when it is for academic purposes only, but being as I am a senior and looking to get in the business right away I may use the film as part of my resume or maybe even enter it in a few festival's if it is good enough. So how can I use this poem so I do not get in trouble down the line somewhere. I am sure I will have more questions down the line (I am shooting this week, hopefully) but I would really appreciate some advice on this one. Thanks.

 

[polfilmblog]

no

"In summation:
Recording a copyrighted work, by itself, and distributing the work in and of itself : Illegal.
Recording a scene of your own invention, with your own actors and story, which HAPPENS to show part of a copyrighted work in the background: Legal."

Noooooooooooooooooooo.

Are you an entertainment attorney perchance (he smiles as he asks)?

You are dispensing some very bad advice here (on the internet, who woulda thunk?).

The po' house ain't that far.

I believe that you believe Fair Use is wide open for you to use anything you damn well like. Unfortunately, this is not so. Fair Use has some very specific legal judgments on its side, and a number of judgments against it. It is extremely complicated, as some here have been trying to get across.

Not for profit You tube videos ... who cares really? They don't often get sued. Taken down, yes. Not sued most likely.

Profit making content: You don't have a chance. You won't even get distribution without E&O insurance, which you won't be securing.

Here's an idea.

Shoot your own scene to play on that TV in the background. Something, I don't know. What's the word? Starts with an "o?"

Original.

 

[2001 Productions]

That is assuming I have an estate for posthumous revenues to be paid to. I mean that if I were to create a movie by myself, copyright it, and then die, there would be no estate and no one to take ownership. Im a 20 year old guy who is still working fast food until I find a better job. If I, not a major film maker, were to make a film and copyright it, there would be no "estate". I might have never even shown the film to anyone but my brother, I may have never sold it, or even intended to sell it, but its still copyrighted. If died after that, there would be no estate, and I dont have a will, so there would be no one to receive ownership.

You obviously don't know the definition of "estate". Do you have a car? Bank account? Credit card debt? Social security number? You apparently have an income. When you die, all of this is considered your estate for legal purposes, whether you have a will or not, or even any surviving next of kin. Any original work you create is part of it.

I disagree, for reasons previously stated.

This is funny. I disagree that marijuana should be illegal. Doesn't mean it isn't.

Ten seconds of a scene from star wars playing in a TV in the background way in the corner of the screen?
No. It would not.

Man, all I can say to you is go for it. Obviously you've made up your own mind about this. If you produce something that attracts enough attention that George Lucas or 20th Century Fox takes notice of it, more power to you.

To anyone else reading this thread, I recommend you look into copyright law yourself before accepting this person's word.

 

[omega gamer 89]

Well, I just asked my professor how this works, and he said that all you have to do is put the media you wish to use on a TV or monitor, and then film that TV or monitor. Thats all. BOOM. Instant legal copying.
He sighted "The pocket Lawyer for filmmakers" by Thomas A Crowell as his source.
The book.
Im going to get this book from the library to find the exact methods and legalities of this, but this book is where my professor got this method of legal use from. If anyone here has this book, perhpas you could look into it for us in the mean time.
So, despite all the cries to the contrary, it seems you CAN do this.
Perhaps in the future we can all be a little less quick to dismiss an idea just because it seems a bit unliely.

 

[sonnyboo]

My professor has been teaching videography classes for more than eight years. He was a professional videographer for twelve years before that. He worked in the industry, on real films and Television shows every day. I hate to be rude, but I will believe him over anyone here. As this is a forum for INDEPENDENT film makers, and he is a PROFESSIONAL film maker who worked with studios, producers, starts, directors and the like for many years, Im afraid I will have to take his word over anyone here.

But you know what, I'll settle this once and for all. Im going to see my admissions coordinator at PTI tomorrow, so Illl stop by and ask my professor exactly how this may or may not work.

As for an attorney, I'd rather not throw away my money trying to get an answer to argument on an internet forum. If you can find an attorney who will work for free, and is still competent, I'll be more than willing to ask them.

I am a professional filmmaker, in that I do this for a living with no "day job" per se, unless you count editing on TV shows and TV commercials, which to me is a part of the same process. I have also worked on "real movies" for over 10 years starting with Air Force One for their scenes shot in Ohio. Maybe you didn't see my IMDB resume, but I consider myself a "real filmmaker", whatever that means.

I have also been teaching filmmaking for 8 years, but I have actually had to get and pay for ERRORS AND OMISSIONS insurance. I have had attorneys involved to look over both feature and short films for copyright and trademark for movies I have made because I have distribution and broadcast on national networks in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and the UK.

You can take this advice or toss it away, it's up to you. I will say that if you aren't able to afford an attorney for your film, then you are obviously at a stage where the question is moot anyways. Some day you might actually have to get and afford an attorney if what you are making is intended to be sold or seen by more than a few family or friends. At this stage, it appears you are not really needing to worry about that yet, do as you will. Try taking the pocket legal filmmaking book to court with you and see how well it stands up...

Our intentions are not to slam you, but to help you avoid a costly mistake. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[sonnyboo]

He sighted "The pocket Lawyer for filmmakers" by Thomas A Crowell as his source.
The book.

So, despite all the cries to the contrary, it seems you CAN do this.

Here's a quote from that book...

No asterisks about exceptions, but by reading that from the book, do you think it would or would not be safe to use someone else's copywritten material in your film? There didn't seem to be any gray area.

Now if you can find a statute from a legal precedent, not a cheap $7 book, you might have a chance in court defending yourself in court. In a cursory search, you'll find that pretty much every single case is in favor of the COPYRIGHT HOLDERS. As I previously stated, you might circumvent the CRIMINAL aspects of copyright infringement, but not the CIVIL liability.

Does that mean whoever the copyright holder will 100% come after you for using their intellectual property? No, fact it's likely they won't, especially at the student level of filmmaking.

Does it mean that no one will distribute or broadcast your movie 100%? ABSOLUTELY YES. No one will put themselves in a position of civil litigation because you failed to secure a release for copywritten material inside of your work. You will have to buy ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE, and they will not sell you a policy if you do not have written permission to use copywritten material inside of your work of art.

As I said, you obviously are not at the level of filmmaking where these issues will come up. Does that mean you should develop bad habits and attempting to use as a defense of copyright infringement a professor and a paperback book of weak legal arguments (that has a legal disclaimer at the head of the book stating clearly that these are not a substitute to having an attorney in any way and the author cannot be held liable for any future disputes...)? That is entirely up to you and anyone else to make that decision on their own.

So, despite all the cries to the contrary, it seems you CAN do this.

Claiming that people trying to help you are "crying" is what is being construed as "personal" and leaning towards the unpleasant. Let's not go to a place where this becomes a flame war because we have an honest disagreement and are debating the facts, not saying things about other people or how they are posting.

Again, we're just suggesting taking the higher road, the more ethical one. Clearly, you might have a problem if someone were to use a clip of yours on a TV in their movie and said it was the crappiest movie ever made. Do you have the legal right to protect your intellectual property from that kind of use? ABSOLUTELY you do. Is it worth the money to take them to a civil court if it's just a video on YouTube? Probably not. Would it be worth it if they used your movie on a TV screen in TRANSFORMERS 3? Sure, you'd smell the cash and go for it. And you'd be within your legal rights to do so. You own the copyright in your movie and no one can use it in any way without your express permission.

 

[CDCosta]

Omega, please stop misleading our forum members.

 

[wheatgrinder]

FYI: The supreme court of the US doesn't issue facts.. it issues "opinions" which are interpreted in courts. If you have any experience with ANY aspect of the us courts or you would know this in your gut. Folks settle out of court, not because the FACTS don't support there case, rather that the risk that the "misinformation" and "feelings" of the jury, or the judge will override FACTs and truth.. cmon, read a John Grisham novel at least!

 

[sonnyboo]

FYI: The supreme court of the US doesn't issue facts.. it issues "opinions"

The Supreme Court issue decisions that become statutes that uphold or change laws...

 

[omega gamer 89]

Sorry I took so long to reply to this, my computer decided it didn't want to connect to the internet for a week.
I know you guys aren't trying to slam or insult me, and that you're only trying to help. However, Im in the exact same position; Im only trying to help clear all this up.

Now if you can find a statute from a legal precedent, not a cheap $7 book, you might have a chance in court

I know that saying "I have a book that says I can do it" wouldn't hold up in court. The reason I sighted that boom as "proof" is because the book was written by an ATTORNEY.
It's not that book is what makes this legal or defines what legal is, its that the book was written by a person with the knowledge of these laws. If I were to bring the book's author in to a court case, he would be able to sight all the exact laws that may or may not make something like this legal. If I were in court, I wouldn't say "Look at what the book says" I would sight the laws and legalities of the matter. The reason I mentioned the book is to have a source of where I was getting my information. I dont have the time or the legal know how to find the exact laws that pertain to this, so this is the next best thing.

Claiming that people trying to help you are "crying" is what is being construed as "personal" and leaning towards the unpleasant. Let's not go to a place where this becomes a flame war because we have an honest disagreement and are debating the facts, not saying things about other people or how they are posting.

I dont see how that could be misconstrued as personal or unpleasant, but if it was, I apologize.

Omega, please stop misleading our forum members.

I am not.

As for the quote from the book, that does not disprove anything I have said so far.
Those exclusive rights apply to the movie or work itself, not a new work which happens to have the copyrighted work in it. So, only the copyright holder can copy, distribute, perform, display, or make derivative works of that movie. But the trick here is that you are not copying, distributing, ect, the copyrighted work. You are creating your own, original, brand new work, which has part of the copyrighted work shown in it. You are using the copyrighted work itself, just showing a small part of it as part of a new scene in a new work.

A book may not be the end-all be-all of what is or is not legal, but the book was written by an attorney who specializes in this type of thing. If it was written by someone with less credibility or knowledge of the subject, I would be skeptical. But it was written by an expert, and my professor says he has used this method many times and has had no problems. He has no reason to mislead me about this, so I believe him.

Also, not trying to sound insulting or anything, but so far, I am the only one who has sighted any sources. I have facts and experts to back my assertion up. As of yet, I have not seen any of the nay-sayers sight any sources.
So far, it has only been what they *think* would happen with it.
As none of us are lawyers, none of us here can give a definite yes or no. However, there is a lot of evidence to back up my assertion, and so far, none to disprove it.

 

[sonnyboo]

So far, it has only been what they *think* would happen with it.
As none of us are lawyers, none of us here can give a definite yes or no. However, there is a lot of evidence to back up my assertion, and so far, none to disprove it.

I cited the same book, and you can clearly see from the United States Copyright and Patent Office all the information that contradicts your hypothesis.

Once you own the copyright on a work of art, such as a motion picture or sound recording, you have the right to determine if it used in any movie, that includes whether it was shot on a TV screen or not.

See http://www.copyright.gov/

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

and this one is much more up your alley
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/copyrightmystery/

 

[Fylms Insurance Services]

Copyright and Trademark laws apply to plenty of production ventures, the illegality and consequences of a mishap can be catastrophic like we all know. Ownership of a movie and the right to use it publicly are two separate issues. The copyright holder retains exclusive public performance rights. There is a very fine line between what is piracy and what is not. When filming make sure to secure an Errors and Omissions Insurance policy, in the event you wrongfully copied owned material this product will defend in any suit brought against you. Insurance in this industry is very detailed and specific, consulting your agent is just as beneficial as your attorney.

 

[sonnyboo]

Piracy is the illegal distribution and selling of a copywritten item without permission. This debate is over the usage of a copywritten work of art within another work.

 

[directorik]

A peeve of mine. I just feel the obsessive need to correct it.

The past participle of copyright isn’t copywritten. We are
discussing the right to copy and copyright is one word. So it’s
copyrighted.