Permission?

Started by Link, September 15, 2003, 09:05:23 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

ReelHotGames

#15
September 18, 2003, 11:37:20 AM
SoNowThen --

You don't EVER have to get permission to do anything, you just suffer the consequences for the legality of your actions. So to your question can you - yes, you can. Is it legal, no it isn't. Does it matter - probably not.
"Body Count Cinema the Customizable Card Game"
A cinematic CCG coming to a coffee table near you!
www.reelhotgames.com/BodyCountCinema_Home.htm

SoNowThen

#16
September 18, 2003, 11:40:21 AM
But we plan on trying to sell the dvd of the concert. If it's illegal, I gotta find out how to get the rights so we don't get sued.

On a side note, does it seem ridiculous to anyone else that the rights to a 100 year old painting can be "owned" by somebody? Die.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

ReelHotGames

#17
September 18, 2003, 02:01:39 PM
What I'm trying to say is the use of an image that has been collected in a book falls under the copyright act, will anyone know that you've zoomed in on a picture of the "Mona Lisa" which is public domain, but the image is in a book, which is copyrighted? No. That's up to you. The image itself of say the Mona Lisa falls under public domain because of time, and law so do what you want, the book it comes from is not, so you are technically breaking the law. The tree is falling in the woods, so...
"Body Count Cinema the Customizable Card Game"
A cinematic CCG coming to a coffee table near you!
www.reelhotgames.com/BodyCountCinema_Home.htm

metroshane

#18
September 18, 2003, 02:06:40 PM
Let's take a look at the legal side of things why don't we.  That might be a nice change.

First, you can contact the Harry Fox Agency at anytime to find out who has rights to something.

Next, try a film stock agency.  They'll usually sell you usage of royalty free footage for a minimal cost.  Just google "film stock agency".
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

SoNowThen

#19
September 18, 2003, 02:23:51 PM
Quote from: michael alessandroWhat I'm trying to say is the use of an image that has been collected in a book falls under the copyright act, will anyone know that you've zoomed in on a picture of the "Mona Lisa" which is public domain, but the image is in a book, which is copyrighted? No. That's up to you. The image itself of say the Mona Lisa falls under public domain because of time, and law so do what you want, the book it comes from is not, so you are technically breaking the law. The tree is falling in the woods, so...

Sounds good to me. I don't wanna do anything illegal. If I could get to the Mona Lisa, I would just shoot it :)

Actually what I want to shoot is those clocks that are all deflated by Dhali...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

metroshane

#20
September 18, 2003, 03:01:39 PM
QuoteIf I could get to the Mona Lisa, I would just shoot it  

They wouldn't let you  :lol: They don't let you use flashes in the llouvre (sp).

QuoteActually what I want to shoot is those clocks that are all deflated by Dhali...

Dali's copyright's are still in effect. :wink: A common mistake made by photographers (even motion) is that taking a picture of someone's art work can also be copyright enfringement.   I couldn't sell pictures of Andy Whore-hall's paintings without getting his permission.  

Confused yet?
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

Witkacy

#21
September 27, 2003, 08:08:36 PM
According to my research, copywrite law only came into effect around 1920 so anything created before that date is copyright free.

ReelHotGames

#22
September 28, 2003, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: WitkacyAccording to my research, copywrite law only came into effect around 1920 so anything created before that date is copyright free.

That's not entirely accurate, because they allowed people to apply for copyrights for work they had previously created prior to the copyright laws. So some earlier works had been under copyrights in the 1920's but had been actually created prior.
"Body Count Cinema the Customizable Card Game"
A cinematic CCG coming to a coffee table near you!
www.reelhotgames.com/BodyCountCinema_Home.htm

Witkacy

#23
September 29, 2003, 07:40:08 PM
I imagine this is only  in respect to their own personal works prior to 1920 and not inclusive of other peoples works.

SoNowThen

#24
March 18, 2004, 12:39:15 PM
A new question:

What's the law re photgraphs of people? Like, if a picture is in the newspaper, doesn't it become public domain to be copied and posted where we please?

The reason I ask is: what if I want to have a shot of an old picture of Rita Hayworth in a short film, do I have to clear the "rights" with somebody? The context would be something like somebody says "that girl looks like a young Rita Hayworth", and then we cut to an insert of a picture of Rita's face.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

metroshane

#25
March 18, 2004, 01:23:30 PM
The short answer is that Yes you need permission from the copyright holder...and yes you'd need a model release (or that of her estate) stating the intentions.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

SoNowThen

#26
March 18, 2004, 01:25:58 PM
How would one find out who owns the copyright on a picture?


And again, to come back to the South Park example, do they have to get the rights when they use Celebrity pics? And why would said celebrities give permission when they are getting roasted by these guys?


Also, y'know that Vietnam pic of the one guy holding his pistol to the other guy's head? Do people have to get permission for that when they put it in movies?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

metroshane

#27
March 18, 2004, 01:41:40 PM
Finding the owner of the copyright would indeed be a challenge.  No idea how to do that...but there's a good chance the owner is George Hurrell.

South Park is probably making use of a fair use clause for Satire.

Vietnam pic needs permission in theory.  In reality, the copyright holder is probably unknown as are the models...and has probably slipped into public domain b/c the copyright was never protected.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

SoNowThen

#28
March 18, 2004, 01:44:54 PM
So if your work is satire, you can use whatever, but if it's serious, you're hooped?

What is the fair use clause?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

metroshane

#29
March 18, 2004, 02:06:32 PM
now you're getting into attorney type questions.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions