Copyright, Fair Use etc.

[Rodney]

My apology if the following linked resource has been posted before.

 

There is a lot of misinformation about copyright and fair use out in the wild and I recently read an article that attempted to shed some light on the subject.

I haven't vetted the article itself nor examined it for links more appropriate for 3D animation but the article did reference some publications that can and do speak for themselves.

One of those publications primarily concerns itself with the plight of the documentary filmmaker, who navigates an increasingly difficult arena of copyright laws and limitations but many aspects of fair usage they claim as self evident cross pollinates into common areas of interest to us as well.

 

Here's that primary reference:

DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKERS' STATEMENT OF BEST PRACTICES IN FAIR USE (2005)

 

The case of a 3D animator/filmmaker is a little different especially in that we don't tend to capture 'live' events that might inadvertently contain copyrighted material.

Most if not all of what is seen in our product is placed there intentionally.

This then is a key to understanding our own fair use within the realm of 3D animation; our intention.

[largento]

The most preposterous case I remember was the Time Square advertising case with the first Spider-Man movie. The film-makers had replaced the advertising on the buildings. This angered the owners of the spaces because part of the value of them is that they will pop up in movies. It seems ludicrous to me to think that just because you own a billboard in the physical space, that you also own it in the virtual space.

 

I think the owners eventually won out, but I'd have to go looking.

 

For my latest animated puppet parody, I've made use of the music of Kevin MacLeod, who releases lots of music under Creative Commons. He refuses to join ASCAP because he doesn't want them suing schools who might perform his music in band class. His belief is that it's his music and he should be able to decide what people can do with it.

[robcat2075]

The most preposterous case I remember was the Time Square advertising case with the first Spider-Man movie. The film-makers had replaced the advertising on the buildings. This angered the owners of the spaces because part of the value of them is that they will pop up in movies. It seems ludicrous to me to think that just because you own a billboard in the physical space, that you also own it in the virtual space.

 

I think the owners eventually won out, but I'd have to go looking.

 

If this ruling wasn't appealed further, it looks like the movie makers won...

 

"Spider-Man" can alter Times Square

 

 

 

I think one of the crazier applications of copyright prevents you from photographing a building, as if it were a sculpture that was not in the public domain. That just about make shooting in any modern city nearly impossible without expensive clearances from every property owner.

[Roger]

 

The most preposterous case I remember was the Time Square advertising case with the first Spider-Man movie. The film-makers had replaced the advertising on the buildings. This angered the owners of the spaces because part of the value of them is that they will pop up in movies. It seems ludicrous to me to think that just because you own a billboard in the physical space, that you also own it in the virtual space.

 

I think the owners eventually won out, but I'd have to go looking.

 

If this ruling wasn't appealed further, it looks like the movie makers won...

 

"Spider-Man" can alter Times Square

 

 

 

I think one of the crazier applications of copyright prevents you from photographing a building, as if it were a sculpture that was not in the public domain. That just about make shooting in any modern city nearly impossible without expensive clearances from every property owner.

 

 

I wonder would this include a virtual copy of a building? Let's say you make a copy of the Empire State building and have a giant hamster climbing it, would that get you in trouble?

[robcat2075]

 

 

I think one of the crazier applications of copyright prevents you from photographing a building, as if it were a sculpture that was not in the public domain. That just about make shooting in any modern city nearly impossible without expensive clearances from every property owner.

 

 

I wonder would this include a virtual copy of a building? Let's say you make a copy of the Empire State building and have a giant hamster climbing it, would that get you in trouble?

 

 

Maybe so?

 

Or... this is copyright we're talking about... back in 1930 you had to explicitly copyright your work and no one thought about copyrighting buildings back then or if they did, did they renew it so it would still be valid today?

 

The building copyright thing is something I've read about in relation to fairly recent architectural works. I'm going to guess the ESB is safe.

[Rodney]

I wonder would this include a virtual copy of a building? Let's say you make a copy of the Empire State building and have a giant hamster climbing it, would that get you in trouble?

 

That sounds to me like it would fall into the realm of parody which will allow for usage. Not to mention the long line of uses prior that follow the same basic usage (sans hamster presumably).

 

A troubling aspect of fair use for me appears to be that if we are making fun of something (i.e. combining the resource in question with some element of comedy) it may be considered fair use but a more serious use might run afoul of copyright law. This is one of those downward spirals that leads to a place we don't want to be.

 

One aspect of copyright law should very likely consider what the usage has contributed to the resource so that if sued for infringement a portion or all of that sum would be due the new contributor at the expense of the copyright holder. In other words, if something I create is made more marketable by someone else's use I should have incentive to allow that use rather than to sue. This would still allow my right as original copyright owner to request the use be discontinued or the usage be removed. In cases where value diminishes and the parties do not compensate me for that loss I would retain my right to sue for the damage incurred. The first part of this we have seen repeated over and over on properties that have been set aside, mothballed, abandoned or even intentionally halted where fans have rallied and brought new life to the property. An open question then becomes how much of the profit is the copyright holder entitled to from revenues generated by the unsanctioned use. In the case of Spider-man on a Times Square screen that might equate to $5.... $10... $100... nothing... all depending on how much that element contributed to revenue in the usage.

 

There are always going to be elements of 'proper' use to consider.

One might be that of a basic test of whether the average person at that time and place would also have incorporated the resource.

Advertisements in public spaces (in my estimation) are automatically fair use and in a perfect world companies that sue for trivial usage should be fined for being stupid.

They can't have it both ways... in your face advertisement that cannot be avoided along with the ability to removed the same from the public record.

Exceptions will always exist of course, especially in cases where established law prohibits use.

And this is where the mess begins and ends. New laws are often based on established precedence and yet not all laws are valid for use as precedence.