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.

 

[bcahill009]

I actually found a pretty good site when researching my question.
http://www.copyrightkids.org/permissioninformation.htm
If anyone has more info, I would much appreciate it, otherwise I will consider my above post my welcome post.

 

[sonnyboo]

Greetings.

First off, yes there is a great deal more leniency for Educational Purposes, as in the schools are not punished for violating copyright in many regards. There is an educational exemption from prosecution if it is for class.

If you wanted to go beyond school, then all rights apply, so you would have to obtain the rights to the published work, if it is not public domain.

 

[omega gamer 89]

I dont know for sure, but this may be something to look in to. I went to PTI for video/3D editing, and during a lesson, one of my professors mentioned something almost exactly like this.
He said that if you want use a piece of copyrighted media, you can do so by taking footage of it on a screen or monitor, because you are creating a new piece of media which merely shows the copyrighted piece, and not using the piece itself.
So, if you wanted to show a clip from Star Wars in your film, you cant just take a clip ripped from the DVD and put that in your film. But what you can do, is play the DVD on your television, and then just film your television, and use that clip.

This works because George Lucas and his companies have the rights to that particular exact piece of footage. If you show that piece of footage in a clip containing other things, perhaps one of your actors, then you are creating a new piece of footage. Its not the exact footage George Lucas owns, so your free to do it.
Its kinda like how you can do a reenactment of a clip from a movie, even with the exact same dialogue, character names, and scenery, its not the actual footage from the movie.

Dont quote me on this, and dont take my word for it. Im just saying its something to look into.

 

[Jijenji]

No, I think that is innacurate.
You must have permission or own the rights.

You cannot shoot footage of a movie and then sell it,
no more than you can copy pages out of a book and sell those.

 

[indietalk]

I dont know for sure, but this may be something to look in to. I went to PTI for video/3D editing, and during a lesson, one of my professors mentioned something almost exactly like this.
He said that if you want use a piece of copyrighted media, you can do so by taking footage of it on a screen or monitor, because you are creating a new piece of media which merely shows the copyrighted piece, and not using the piece itself.
So, if you wanted to show a clip from Star Wars in your film, you cant just take a clip ripped from the DVD and put that in your film. But what you can do, is play the DVD on your television, and then just film your television, and use that clip.

This works because George Lucas and his companies have the rights to that particular exact piece of footage. If you show that piece of footage in a clip containing other things, perhaps one of your actors, then you are creating a new piece of footage. Its not the exact footage George Lucas owns, so your free to do it.
Its kinda like how you can do a reenactment of a clip from a movie, even with the exact same dialogue, character names, and scenery, its not the actual footage from the movie.

Dont quote me on this, and dont take my word for it. Im just saying its something to look into.

Wrong.

 

[omega gamer 89]

You cannot shoot footage of a movie and then sell it,
no more than you can copy pages out of a book and sell those.

Of course not, thats just piracy. But thats the point of this method; that you are NOT just shooting the movie and selling it.
What you ARE doing, is shooting footage of YOUR actors and YOUR movie, which just so happens to have the movie playing on a tv in the shot.
If you were shooting JUST the movie, then yes, that'd be illegal. But if you're shooting your OWN movie, and some other movie is playing on a TV in your shot, that's different.

Like I said, Im not sure of the specifics. I do know for sure, thought, that there is something to this, I know it works somehow. It may be only under certain circumstances, or perhaps only for educational purposes, but I know for sure that there is some way this works...
Its either that, or my professor was lying to my class for six weeks.

 

[indietalk]

Copy right = right to copy. Simple.

 

[omega gamer 89]

Not trying to be argumentative, but I assure you that law, especially copyright and trademark law, is NEVER simple.

 

[indietalk]

No but it's simple to understand that you need permission to copy someone's property.

 

[2001 Productions]

Indietalk speaks the truth. Ignore at your own peril.

 

[omega gamer 89]

No but it's simple to understand that you need permission to copy someone's property.

No, Because its not as simple as that. It NEVER is. A more accurate description would be "You often need permission from the owner, or someone representing him, or someone related to him, under certain circumstances, unless you are making profit from it, to copy their property."
There is NEVER a simple "Yes you can" or "No you cant" with copyright law. Its always dependent on the circumstances, and if you make profit off of it, and how long ago the person filed the copyright, and if the original owner is still alive or if the copyright is owned by their estate, and a trillion other things.
Im not saying you can just go around filming and showing a copyrighted work anytime you want, Im saying that there IS a way to do this.

Im not gonna start an argument here. Im just telling you what my professor told my class, and I believe him. As I said, it may only be under certain circumstances, or only for educational purposes, but there is some way to do it.

Copyright law is infinitely complex and convoluted.

 

[sonnyboo]

Unless your professor is an attorney with a license to practice law, his statements are half true and greatly misleading as you quoted them.

There is a complication in that you can take another piece of art and if you manipulate it enough to make it your own work of art, you can circumvent copyright laws and create an original work of art. That means doing more than shooting a TV screen showing a movie.

Now that stops a CRIMINAL proceeding regarding copyright law, but as ever rapper from the 1980's and earl 1990's can tell you, that does NOT mean you are off the hook for CIVIL laws. TON LOC with the song WILD THING lost his civil suit by Eddie Van Halen for their sampling of the song JAMIE'S CRYING, even though they WON the criminal copyright suit. One kept him out of jail, the other cost him millions of dollars.

Along with a dozen similar lawsuits (Vanilla Ice versus Queen, anyone?), in every single case, the copyright owners won in the civil suits. Now every rapper or musician that uses a sample has to CREDIT the original songwriters in their creation of a new piece of music. The analogy would be the same for using image and sounds from someone else's video, film, TV show, or short.

In the end, you might circumvent the copyright laws, but not the rights of the copyright holder over how their property is used. Copyright laws are clear, the civil laws are the gray area, and the ones that will cost money and prevent you from using said footage, regardless of whether you made money or not. If you had STAR WARS playing on the TV screen of a pedophile in your movie, even if you never made a dime, George Lucas might find that offensive and prevent you from legally using his footage in that way, and he'd be within his rights to do so. He owns the copyrights and has the right to determine how, when, and if his property can be used. He can say NO no matter how much money you offer him.

 

[directorik]

Wow. You have been given terrible advice. And from a teacher.

Copyright law is very, very simple. Educational use is very clear.
Fair use is very clear. Public domain use is very clear. The owner
of the right to copy has the final say on how their work is
copied. Profit doesn’t come into it, circumstances doesn’t come
into it, the death of the copyright holder doesn’t come into it,
if the copyright is held by a person, a company, an estate or an
organization doesn’t come into it.

Your professor is wrong.

What can be complex is determining who owns the right to copy. But
it’s not complex to understand that no one can copy something that
they don’t have the right to copy.

So let me understand. Your professor says that I can set a video
camera in front of my TV, shoot “Star Wars” off of the TV, make a
DVD and distribute it. Not for profit, but I can distribute that
copy as much I want as long as I don’t make profit?

What if I were to go to a movie theater and shoot the latest new
release? Does your professor say that’s fine as long as I don’t
make a profit from it? Or is it only shooting it off of a TV that makes
it legal?

 

[omega gamer 89]

Copyright law is very, very simple. Educational use is very clear.
Fair use is very clear. Public domain use is very clear. The owner
of the right to copy has the final say on how their work is
copied. Profit doesn’t come into it, circumstances doesn’t come
into it, the death of the copyright holder doesn’t come into it,
if the copyright is held by a person, a company, an estate or an
organization doesn’t come into it.

Copyright law is anything but simple. Theses things are rarely clear, as people are constantly finding loopholes and twisting the wording of contracts and laws to get around the system.
Profit does come into it, and is one of the main reasons you can use copyrighted material for educational purposes.
The death of the copyright owner absolutely comes into it. If I made a movie and I alone owned the rights to it, who would own it if I died? Unless I specified someone in my will, the movie would have no copyright holder and become fair game to anyone who wished to use it. If a company or studio owned all or part of the rights with me, then they would own it. If I was the sole owner, and I died there would be no owner.
For example, there are many old books, which were written decades or even centuries ago, which are public domain because the author died, and thus there was no one to own the rights to the book.

So let me understand. Your professor says that I can set a video
camera in front of my TV, shoot “Star Wars” off of the TV, make a
DVD and distribute it. Not for profit, but I can distribute that
copy as much I want as long as I don’t make profit?

You are being ridiculous, that is not at all what I said. In fact, I said that you COULDN'T do EXACTLY that.
As I said earlier;

This works because George Lucas and his companies have the rights to that particular exact piece of footage. If you show that piece of footage in a clip containing other things, perhaps one of your actors, then you are creating a new piece of footage. Its not the exact footage George Lucas owns, so your free to do it.
Its kinda like how you can do a reenactment of a clip from a movie, even with the exact same dialogue, character names, and scenery, its not the actual footage from the movie.

See? The key here is that you are NOT shooting JUST star wars. You are shooting YOUR OWN SCENE, which just HAPPENS to show a clip from star wars in the background.
Pay attention.

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.

 

[directorik]

Ya know, there is no need at all to be rude.

I have an opinion. An opinion that your professor is wrong. That
has nothing to do with my way of communication with you or my
feeling about you as a person. And as it's simply my opinion, I may
be wrong in my assumption.

I asked questions I was interest in knowing your answer to. No
need at all to tell me to “pay attention”. No need to tell me I’m
being ridiculous.

We could have had an interesting, informative conversation about
copyright. I’m sorry you chose to treat me as some kind of
ridiculous person who doesn’t pay attention rather than a fellow
filmmaker wanting to discuss this issue.

I’m sorry you decided to make it personal.

 

[2001 Productions]

Dude -- omega -- guys like rik and sonnyboo and indietalk are industry professionals. It's their job to know copyright law. They have no interest in blowing smoke up your tuckus. I don't know you; maybe you're an industry pro as well, but you sure don't sound like one.

Copyright law is anything but simple. Theses things are rarely clear, as people are constantly finding loopholes and twisting the wording of contracts and laws to get around the system.

True, you can always take it to court. Guess who wins 100% of the time:

Spoiler

the lawyers

. Guess who pays?

Profit does come into it, and is one of the main reasons you can use copyrighted material for educational purposes.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this. I work at a college as a media specialist. Simply saying "you can use copyrighted material for educational purposes" is to overstate fair use. Yes, copyrighted A-V material may be screened, in whole or excerpted, in a classroom environment for registered students without obtaining permission. It cannot, however, be screened in any environment that is visible to the general public. It also cannot be edited or copied onto another medium.

The death of the copyright owner absolutely comes into it. If I made a movie and I alone owned the rights to it, who would own it if I died? Unless I specified someone in my will, the movie would have no copyright holder and become fair game to anyone who wished to use it. If a company or studio owned all or part of the rights with me, then they would own it. If I was the sole owner, and I died there would be no owner.

Actually, the opposite is true. Works created in the US are protected by copyright until 70 years after the death of the author, when it would pass into public domain. Any posthumous revenues would be considered a part of your estate. You would have to specify in your will that you did NOT want your estate to retain copyright.

For example, there are many old books, which were written decades or even centuries ago, which are public domain because the author died, and thus there was no one to own the rights to the book.

Quite true. Shakespeare, Wilde, Poe, Dickens - all public domain - and all dead more than 70 years.

See? The key here is that you are NOT shooting JUST star wars. You are shooting YOUR OWN SCENE, which just HAPPENS to show a clip from star wars in the background.

If you're producing something for your own private use, go for it. If it's something you intend to sell or screen for more than just your family/friends, legally, permission must be obtained.

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.

This statement is just plain wrong. If you don't believe any of us, consult an attorney.

 

[sonnyboo]

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.

Actually, NO it is NOT legal. This is a violation of their copyright. You and your professor are absolutely, 100% wrong on this. You may not use anyone elses copywritten material without their express permission.

As stated, consult any attorney and they will verify this.

 

[omega gamer 89]

Ya know, there is no need at all to be rude.

When was I rude? I didn't say anything rude or insulting. Can you specify what you're referring to?

I have an opinion. An opinion that your professor is wrong. That
has nothing to do with my way of communication with you or my
feeling about you as a person. And as it's simply my opinion, I may
be wrong in my assumption.

That's not an opinion. Whether or not something is legal is a matter of fact, not opinion or belief.

I asked questions I was interest in knowing your answer to. No
need at all to tell me to “pay attention”. No need to tell me I’m
being ridiculous.

I believe there was a need to tell you to pay attention, because you asked a question I had already explicitly answered. You asked if you could do something, and I had previously stated you could not do exactly that. Im sorry if you were offended, but you were being ridiculous. I had said that this was legal under some very specific circumstances, and you asked if it was legal if it was legal under what was essentially the opposite of those circumstances.

We could have had an interesting, informative conversation about
copyright.

I see no reason why we cant still have such a conversation.

I’m sorry you chose to treat me as some kind of
ridiculous person who doesn’t pay attention rather than a fellow
filmmaker wanting to discuss this issue.

I wasn't "treating" you as anything. You had asked a question which was already answered quite clearly, hence, it was only right to say you were not paying attention. Had you been paying attention, you would have already seen the answer, and had no need to ask the question.
Also, saying that you were acting ridiculous is not an insult. Neither is saying you did not pay attention.

I’m sorry you decided to make it personal.

I never made it personal. It appears that you are taking it personally, but thats just what it seems like to me.

Actually, the opposite is true. Works created in the US are protected by copyright until 70 years after the death of the author, when it would pass into public domain. Any posthumous revenues would be considered a part of your estate. You would have to specify in your will that you did NOT want your estate to retain copyright.

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.

If you're producing something for your own private use, go for it. If it's something you intend to sell or screen for more than just your family/friends, legally, permission must be obtained.

I disagree, for reasons previously stated.

This statement is just plain wrong. If you don't believe any of us, consult an attorney.

Ok, lets say I were to make a film, which was written, produced, filmed, edited, and owned entirely by me. All of the dialogue and characters and scenes are entirely original. However, there happens to be one scene in the movie where the characters are having a gun fight at a bar, and in the corner of the screen, you can just barely see a little TV with Star Wars playing on it. Its only on screen for about ten seconds, and the viewers' focus is going to be on the character, not on the random, irrelevant TV in the background.
You really think that violates copyright laws? 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.

Actually, NO it is NOT legal. This is a violation of their copyright. You and your professor are absolutely, 100% wrong on this. You may not use anyone elses copywritten material without their express permission.

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.

 

[John@Bophe]

I was planning a shot of my lead character stumbling across the book and having a shot of it's cover.

If you want to know about doing things "by the book" -- then this shot described above would also require permission from the publisher of the book. I worked for a major publishing company for several years, and they have a Permissions department set up specifically to deal with this type of use. Even if the text is in the public domain, the cover artwork and design are copy protected by the publisher. So showing a book as a prop requires the publisher's permission, often with a fee.