Re: Photography and copyright laws...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sniper, Apr 24, 2007.

  1. Sniper

    Sniper Guest

    I was under the impression that publicity stills are
    public domain as they are produced for distribution to the public.

    thanks




    On Apr 22, 2:37 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > "Sniper" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 21, 5:50 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > >> Alfred Molon wrote:
    > >> > In article <200420072221076835%>,
    > >> > says...

    >
    > >> >> Copyright law is fairly clear, so I suggest reading it yourself:
    > >> >>http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103

    > > Thanks for the responses. On the same issue, today
    > > I was snooping around some online stock photography sites (alamy) and
    > > noticed one contributer who had about 38000 filmstillsonline!. What
    > > is the copyright situation with filmstills, are theypublicdomain?.
    > > If you watch amovieand make several screen grabs with software is
    > > the picture then your copyright?.

    >
    > >> >>http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/INTELLECTUALPROPERTY/distance.htm
    > >> >>http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_11_hirtle.html

    >
    > >> >> If you read those URLs, you'll see I'm sending you to the US copyright
    > >> >> office, the University of Texas, and Stanford University, not
    > >> >> Wikipedia, answers.com, or other sources.

    >
    > >> > These are the laws of one country out of over 160. It would be better
    > >> > to
    > >> > post links to international laws and conventions.

    >
    > >> Well; yes and no. You won't (can't) be prosecuted under those, you'll
    > >> be prosecuted under the law in some specific country. So that's the law
    > >> that really matters. Also, the case law, which is what establishes what
    > >> the words really mean, is all specific to one country or another.

    >
    > I would guess that it would depend on the film. Really old silent's could be
    > in thepublicdomain.Stillsfrom Star Wars on the other hand I would be
    > would be a copyright violation. It is also important to know that some
    > movies are now privately owned and so if the person posting thestillsis
    > the owner then no problem. You would need more information. I would assume
    > that unless the stock house was just plain illegal that they have made sure
    > the images are kosher.
    >
    > =(8)
     
    Sniper, Apr 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sniper

    =\(8\) Guest

    That however doesn't make the public domain. One can give away for free use
    their copyrighted work and still retain the copyright.

    =(8)


    "Sniper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I was under the impression that publicity stills are
    > public domain as they are produced for distribution to the public.
    >
    > thanks
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Apr 22, 2:37 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    >> "Sniper" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Apr 21, 5:50 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> >> Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> >> > In article <200420072221076835%>,
    >> >> > says...

    >>
    >> >> >> Copyright law is fairly clear, so I suggest reading it yourself:
    >> >> >>http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103
    >> > Thanks for the responses. On the same issue, today
    >> > I was snooping around some online stock photography sites (alamy) and
    >> > noticed one contributer who had about 38000 filmstillsonline!. What
    >> > is the copyright situation with filmstills, are theypublicdomain?.
    >> > If you watch amovieand make several screen grabs with software is
    >> > the picture then your copyright?.

    >>
    >> >> >>http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/INTELLECTUALPROPERTY/distance.htm
    >> >> >>http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_11_hirtle.html

    >>
    >> >> >> If you read those URLs, you'll see I'm sending you to the US
    >> >> >> copyright
    >> >> >> office, the University of Texas, and Stanford University, not
    >> >> >> Wikipedia, answers.com, or other sources.

    >>
    >> >> > These are the laws of one country out of over 160. It would be
    >> >> > better
    >> >> > to
    >> >> > post links to international laws and conventions.

    >>
    >> >> Well; yes and no. You won't (can't) be prosecuted under those, you'll
    >> >> be prosecuted under the law in some specific country. So that's the
    >> >> law
    >> >> that really matters. Also, the case law, which is what establishes
    >> >> what
    >> >> the words really mean, is all specific to one country or another.

    >>
    >> I would guess that it would depend on the film. Really old silent's could
    >> be
    >> in thepublicdomain.Stillsfrom Star Wars on the other hand I would be
    >> would be a copyright violation. It is also important to know that some
    >> movies are now privately owned and so if the person posting thestillsis
    >> the owner then no problem. You would need more information. I would
    >> assume
    >> that unless the stock house was just plain illegal that they have made
    >> sure
    >> the images are kosher.
    >>
    >> =(8)

    >
    >
     
    =\(8\), Apr 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sniper <> wrote:
    > I was under the impression that publicity stills are
    >public domain as they are produced for distribution to the public.


    Aren't *most* published photographs "produced for distribution
    to the public"? Those on TV ads, in magazine ads or articles, in
    the newspapers, on billboards, posters, and cereal boxes...

    But that certainly is not an indication that they are in the
    Public Domain! They are all copyrighted, and you *must* have a
    license from the copyright holder to used them legally.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd Davidson, Apr 24, 2007
    #3
  4. Sniper

    Sniper Guest

    On Apr 24, 7:23 pm, Floyd Davidson <> wrote:
    > Sniper <> wrote:
    > > I was under the impression that publicity stills are
    > >public domain as they are produced for distribution to the public.

    >
    > Aren't *most* published photographs "produced for distribution
    > to the public"? Those on TV ads, in magazine ads or articles, in
    > the newspapers, on billboards, posters, and cereal boxes...
    >
    > But that certainly is not an indication that they are in the
    > Public Domain! They are all copyrighted, and you *must* have a
    > license from the copyright holder to used them legally.
    >
    > --
    > Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)



    Ok thanks for the input. I guess its pretty clear that reselling movie
    stills is quite possibly a recipe for disaster!
     
    Sniper, Apr 26, 2007
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    461
    DVD Verdict
    Sep 17, 2004
  2. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,026
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  3. Sniper

    Photography and copyright laws...

    Sniper, Apr 21, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    484
    Bill Funk
    Apr 24, 2007
  4. Woger

    New Copyright laws..

    Woger, Jul 19, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    319
    impossible
    Jul 19, 2009
  5. William Brown

    nz-pushed-to-create-copyright-laws-by-us-governmen t

    William Brown, May 3, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    548
    Bruce Sinclair
    May 9, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page