Does off the monitor mean off the hook?
August 6, 2009 1:21 PM Subscribe
About 15 years ago I was told that still images shot off a video monitor fall under fair use provisions for print publications, as long as the frame of the console is clearly visible in the shot. Is this true?
The images I'm planning to shoot are not Hollywood films nor commercial TV programs but rather educational and industrial films from the 1950s. I still plan to get permissions for those works whose copyright holders I can identify, but in many cases this will be difficult or impossible.
The images I'm planning to shoot are not Hollywood films nor commercial TV programs but rather educational and industrial films from the 1950s. I still plan to get permissions for those works whose copyright holders I can identify, but in many cases this will be difficult or impossible.
No, this couldn't possibly be true, or else people would be taking pictures of everything and re-using them. Here's everything you need to know about Fair Use.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:43 PM on August 6, 2009
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:43 PM on August 6, 2009
What the others said.
You may have another out, though: do these films display a copyright notice? If they don't, they are in the public domain. Works published before January 1, 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect, must display a copyright notice to be protected.
posted by zsazsa at 2:44 PM on August 6, 2009
You may have another out, though: do these films display a copyright notice? If they don't, they are in the public domain. Works published before January 1, 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect, must display a copyright notice to be protected.
posted by zsazsa at 2:44 PM on August 6, 2009
You may have another out, though: do these films display a copyright notice? If they don't, they are in the public domain.
This isn't an accurate statement of the law.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:51 PM on August 6, 2009
This isn't an accurate statement of the law.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:51 PM on August 6, 2009
Whoops, my mistake. That is the case for works before 1978, as far as I recall. Neglected to read the following statement.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:58 PM on August 6, 2009
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:58 PM on August 6, 2009
You don't say what you're planning to use them for, which will play a far bigger role in determining usage rights than anything you have mentioned. Fair Use depends on your use of it.
The "as long as the frame is visible" thing is pure horse-hooey, though. Among other logical traps, that would make all movie "screeners" recorded by handheld video cameras magically legal.
And Kramer would be rich. Rich, Jerry!
posted by rokusan at 3:33 PM on August 6, 2009
The "as long as the frame is visible" thing is pure horse-hooey, though. Among other logical traps, that would make all movie "screeners" recorded by handheld video cameras magically legal.
And Kramer would be rich. Rich, Jerry!
posted by rokusan at 3:33 PM on August 6, 2009
TooMuchPete is incorrect. You do not need to get permission before using copyrighted works, especially under (U.S.) fair use. If you ask for permission and they say no, you can still go ahead and use the work under fair use. One more time: You do not have to get permission for every use of a copyrighted work.
posted by joeclark at 10:17 AM on August 8, 2009
posted by joeclark at 10:17 AM on August 8, 2009
With all due respect joeclark, I'm not sure what you think I was "incorrect" about. I never made the claim that you seem to be disputing and, further, your first formulation of the rule is just wrong.
First, we have no idea if the work IS fair use. Second, fair use is something that is determined in court, and not before -- it's an affirmative defense against an infringement claim, which (in the U.S.) shifts the burden of proof and means that before you've gotten that far, you're already in court something most people try to avoid.
So assuming that something is fair use is a good way to get yourself into a huge ordeal that you don't want, especially given the complexity and ambiguity in fair use jurisprudence.
Permission from the copyright owner solves this problem completely. If you have permission, it doesn't matter if it's fair use (because there's no infringement). If you can't get permission (or don't want to), you should check with an experienced lawyer to see if you're actually making a legitimate fair use, but permission solves that problem full stop.
This sentence:
You do not need to get permission before using copyrighted works, especially under (U.S.) fair use.
Is not correct. It should read:
"Youdo not need to get permission before using copyrighted works, especially under (U.S.) unless your use of it falls under fair use."
...and even then, that's a dangerous thing to propose to a layperson who might not understand copyright or fair use well enough make such a determination. And lets not forget that fair use isn't a Constitutional protection, there are entire areas of U.S. copyright law to which it doesn't apply (the DMCA, for example).
If we're talking about satirizing something on a personal blog, it's probably a distinction with no difference. If someone runs across this article as they're doing something more ambitious, they could get themselves in quite a mess.
posted by toomuchpete at 1:56 AM on August 17, 2009
First, we have no idea if the work IS fair use. Second, fair use is something that is determined in court, and not before -- it's an affirmative defense against an infringement claim, which (in the U.S.) shifts the burden of proof and means that before you've gotten that far, you're already in court something most people try to avoid.
So assuming that something is fair use is a good way to get yourself into a huge ordeal that you don't want, especially given the complexity and ambiguity in fair use jurisprudence.
Permission from the copyright owner solves this problem completely. If you have permission, it doesn't matter if it's fair use (because there's no infringement). If you can't get permission (or don't want to), you should check with an experienced lawyer to see if you're actually making a legitimate fair use, but permission solves that problem full stop.
This sentence:
You do not need to get permission before using copyrighted works, especially under (U.S.) fair use.
Is not correct. It should read:
"You
...and even then, that's a dangerous thing to propose to a layperson who might not understand copyright or fair use well enough make such a determination. And lets not forget that fair use isn't a Constitutional protection, there are entire areas of U.S. copyright law to which it doesn't apply (the DMCA, for example).
If we're talking about satirizing something on a personal blog, it's probably a distinction with no difference. If someone runs across this article as they're doing something more ambitious, they could get themselves in quite a mess.
posted by toomuchpete at 1:56 AM on August 17, 2009
With equivalent due respect, TooMuchPete, fair use is a user right (no, I am not confusing it with post-CCH Canadian fair dealing) as well as a defence. Fair use is only one of the uses of copyrighted materials that does not require permission in advance; creation of alternate formats is another. Taping TV shows for later viewing is a third.
We were only talking about fair use here, so I assume it actually was clear that I meant you don’t need permission to use copyrighted works fairly. The terms “use” and “fairly” do not have generic meanings in that sentence.
posted by joeclark at 2:57 PM on September 1, 2009
We were only talking about fair use here, so I assume it actually was clear that I meant you don’t need permission to use copyrighted works fairly. The terms “use” and “fairly” do not have generic meanings in that sentence.
posted by joeclark at 2:57 PM on September 1, 2009
a) Fair use is not a "right" in any way, shape, or form. It's an affirmative defense to an infringement claim and does not apply to the entirety of copyright law. If it were a right, it would apply equally to the DMCA, but it does not.
b) "Creation of alternate formats" = fair use
c) Time-shifting = fair use
so I assume it actually was clear that I meant you don’t need permission to use copyrighted works fairly.
This might be what you meant, but it isn't what you actually said. Even still, my point stands: permission obviates the need for a fair use defense because there is no infringement to begin with. Further, unless you've got a really obvious case or an IP attorney, assuming something is fair use is dangerous. The calculus is non-trivial and largely subjective.
Having permission is always better than relying on fair use. Always.
posted by toomuchpete at 10:38 PM on September 9, 2009
b) "Creation of alternate formats" = fair use
c) Time-shifting = fair use
so I assume it actually was clear that I meant you don’t need permission to use copyrighted works fairly.
This might be what you meant, but it isn't what you actually said. Even still, my point stands: permission obviates the need for a fair use defense because there is no infringement to begin with. Further, unless you've got a really obvious case or an IP attorney, assuming something is fair use is dangerous. The calculus is non-trivial and largely subjective.
Having permission is always better than relying on fair use. Always.
posted by toomuchpete at 10:38 PM on September 9, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
Nobody will be able to tell you if your images (that you aren't showing us) are acceptable fair use for a "print publication" (that you've told us nothing about).
That said, there is no blanket fair use rule like the one you describe (and there really aren't very many -- if any -- blanket, "this is automatically fair use" rules to begin with).
Get permission. If you can't get permission, take everything to an experienced copyright lawyer in your jurisdiction and get a recommendation.
posted by toomuchpete at 2:43 PM on August 6, 2009