Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Careful with Those Copyrights!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Derick Angerman View Post
    I have never been one to post a picture on Brit forums website. Copyright issues. I notice several Brit movie web site subscribers have posted a picture or a movie clip from a film which very well have a copyright. How long do copyright stay in effect? Let’s say a picture from a RKO radio company film made in 1942. It has a copyright on the film. RKO films no longer exist. So is the copyright still in effect? Another example. Invasion of the body snatchers, copyright 1956 by Allied Artists. Is that copyright still in effect. Yes, Paramount purchase the rights to that film. Allied Artists no longer exist.
    Yes, and yes, and definitely yes. Copyright in the UK is very complicated and is often changed by changes in the various laws. But it usually depends not when something was made or even when it was first released but from the death of the longest lived of the principal contributors - which in itself is wide open to interpretation

    Then there’s the other wildcard of when companies are involved which have since folded. But copyrights, like screening rights, can be bought and sold. Worse, they are sometimes bought & sold in batches or blocks, which can then be sold on in sub-divided blocks.

    That’s why copyright lawyers get so rich. They charge big bucks trying to track it all down

    See Wikipedia’s page about “Copyright law of the United Kingdom”

    Steve

    Comment


    • #17
      Steve, you are 100 per cent right when it comes down to some lawyers dealing with copyright issues. They sit in their offices, scan through the news and internet, find something that could violate a copyright, with money signs in their eyes, a glee and a smile on their faces, launch a suit . Yes, here in America, like Britain complicated laws regarding copyright issues are in effect.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Derick Angerman View Post
        They sit in their offices, scan through the news and internet, find something that could violate a copyright, with money signs in their eyes, a glee and a smile on their faces,
        You've actually witnessed such a scene, have you?
        I don't think it works quite like that!

        You seem to have a very low opinion of lawyers. They are the devil incarnate....... until you need one.

        Comment


        • #19
          I, personally don’t have anything against the lawyers. In today society they are needed. Wills, property purchases, car accidents and various other problems require a lawyer. But like every profession, their are good and bad.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Derick Angerman View Post
            I, personally don’t have anything against the lawyers. In today society they are needed. Wills, property purchases, car accidents and various other problems require a lawyer....
            ...like copyright violation.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Paxton Milk View Post

              ...like copyright violation.
              Or even just trying to figure out who currently holds the copyright to a particular work, or even if it’s still in copyright

              Steve

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Derick Angerman View Post
                They sit in their offices, scan through the news and internet, find something that could violate a copyright, with money signs in their eyes, a glee and a smile on their faces, launch a suit .

                Originally posted by Derick Angerman View Post
                I, personally don’t have anything against the lawyers.
                Really?


                Comment


                • #23
                  Old user, back after a long while. Copyright has got to be big business now Shutterstock and Getty are playing a petty game. Entrapment. In the old days the Getty archive had photos that were mostly popular, iconic images that would be downloaded for a fee 1000's of times to create revenue. Then they started holding irrelevant images - and ensuring they came up in search engines (Getty rarely featured in the early days). These obscure copyright images were of all and nothing (I saw one which was my local level crossing gates) - a boring picture and likely to have no revenue making potential in the grand scheme of things. Indeed it was so non-descript that someone might be fooled thinking it was amateur - and post it on their obscure personal website, blog or forum. Except Getty's robots will now scrape the web overnight and then serve a notice on the blogger and demand a $600 penalty for infringement. So obscure photos now generate revenue equivalent to that of popular images... and the top 5 rows of google image searches are full of invitations to become entrapped. Beware.

                  Comment


                  • Shirley Brahms
                    Shirley Brahms commented
                    Editing a comment
                    This is very devious, dishonest, unscrupulous behaviour. There should be a law against it.

                • #24
                  I wonder would this also apply with screen grabs. Say you write a book about Dad's army and you clearly state that the BBC owns the rights would you be allowed to publish the book without payment?

                  Comment


                  • #25
                    Whist it is devious I think they target companies and individuals who have the means to pay such fines and who are using the imagery for enhancement of their service and for commercial gain. I have heard reports that a Hospital in UK now strips out all photographs from technical publications they put online for educational use so as to avoid the work required to seek copyright confirmation, even though they know it is probably legitimately sourced.

                    For bloggers and forums I don't think there is so much of a risk - especially as tracing the infringer is difficult.
                    For a book using images and screen grabs - it is clear cut - it is copyright and you must seek express permission and pay the fee, as clearly the author is having a commercial gain by leveraging the image value.

                    The situation whereby you'd say the BBC own the rights is meaningless - they have not consented. Likewise where people publish work on Youtube and say they'll take it down if asked... that is the same as walking into someone's lounge and taking their TV whilst leaving a post it note saying "I'll bring it back if not OK with this"

                    For the web there is confusion as many people shout "Fair Use" as a justification for copying wholesale parts of movies, images and literary works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
                    Fair Use is US legal term and widely abused. The usual defence is that you can use a small part of a work for critical review or homage but some people push that to extremes by showing a 10 minute section of a film on YouTube and claim fair use. My view is when 90% of your product is 5% of someone else's then that is not fair use! the confusion is not helped by YouTube's changing attitude to copyright enforcement; one moment they'll shut you down for a 5 second snippet of music and then the next they'll allow a 30 minute compilation of music to stay up but will impose advertising on the clip. Mixed messages at best.
                    Last edited by Spinalman; 20th August 2019, 11:53 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #26
                      Originally posted by Spinalman View Post
                      Fair Use is US legal term and widely abused.
                      Especially by people using a US law outside of the US

                      Steve

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X