Just like that short that made the online rounds a few years ago, I think called "Batman: Dead End", I don't understand how this is allowed to exist. With each of them, no matter how you cut it, it's copyright infringement. And as the rules on even youtube point out, putting some type of disclaimer with your video of "I claim no ownership over the rights of so and so, this is entirely a fan work" etc etc, that means NOTHING, it doesn't protect you. You're still breaking a law. And sure there's literally thousands of videos on youtube and places like Daily Motion that violate copyright and are able to live on, but something like this that gets so much wide exposure, I don't get how it gets away with it.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
who's making money on this?
i've always thought the biggest issue when using something that copyrighted is that you are making money, or you're providing something that would normally provide others w/ money.
i've always thought the biggest issue when using something that copyrighted is that you are making money, or you're providing something that would normally provide others w/ money.
anyway, it looks cool.
samwise is just a dolt. youre allowed to make things like this as long as you dont receive money for doing so. sure the actors can get paid money for performing their roles (which the voice/actor who plays bats sounds a lot like the man who does the voice in the various batman cartoons from dwayne duffy)
DC going after this short film would be the same as MLB, NHL or any other sporting league/team going after people for discussing a game the next day
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
Peeps wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
who's making money on this?
i've always thought the biggest issue when using something that copyrighted is that you are making money, or you're providing something that would normally provide others w/ money.
anyway, it looks cool.
samwise is just a dolt. youre allowed to make things like this as long as you dont receive money for doing so. sure the actors can get paid money for performing their roles (which the voice/actor who plays bats sounds a lot like the man who does the voice in the various batman cartoons from dwayne duffy)
DC going after this short film would be the same as MLB, NHL or any other sporting league/team going after people for discussing a game the next day
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am Posts: 23078 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Gender: Male
dkfan9 wrote:
i'm not sure if it's legal or not, but what distinguishes it between purely written fan-fic?
I don't think anything really distinguishes it from a fanfic.
Anyway, I see how it would be a good idea to make one of these. These are bound to get a lot more attention than your average student short film and thus could get your foot in the industry. Didn't the guy who made Batman vs. Aliens end up getting a bunch of work from the attention it got?
_________________ For more insulated and ill-informed opinions, click here.
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:35 pm Posts: 4407 Location: Philadelphia/Los Angeles Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
who's making money on this?
i've always thought the biggest issue when using something that copyrighted is that you are making money, or you're providing something that would normally provide others w/ money.
anyway, it looks cool.
samwise is just a dolt. youre allowed to make things like this as long as you dont receive money for doing so. sure the actors can get paid money for performing their roles (which the voice/actor who plays bats sounds a lot like the man who does the voice in the various batman cartoons from dwayne duffy)
DC going after this short film would be the same as MLB, NHL or any other sporting league/team going after people for discussing a game the next day
Thanks! Unfortunately you're entirely wrong, it doesn't matter if you're not trying to make a dime of money from it yourself, you're still using someone else's intellectual property without their permission, and that's copyright infringement. Whether you intend to make a profit or not, you need to secure licensing rights to use someone else's characters. Why do you think so many simple fan videos made from TV shows are taken down from youtube? True, a lot of them aren't, but a lot of them also are. It's because the copyright holder of that particular material finds out about it, alerts youtube, and it gets removed on the basis of copyright infringement, even if the youtube member is making it purely out of being a fan and for other fans just to have fun watching and nothing more.
But congrats on resorting to name calling when I'm just presenting a simple argument But I wouldn't expect much else from round these parts. (or any message board for that matter)
Fair use is an affirmative defense, but its application will vary greatly depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Courts apply a four part balancing test examining the scope of infringement, the effect on the copyright owner's rights (e.g. his or her ability to sell the work), the amount of the work copied, and the purpose of the infringement. Courts have held that a non-commercial use is not fair use when it has a substantial market effect. In cases with a small-scale impact, courts are more receptive to arguments regarding the effect on the copyright owner's market or potential market. Fair use is used mainly in the United States. Other common law jurisdictions have the more rigidly defined defence of fair dealing, while civil law jurisdictions also have similar defences.
yeah profit doesnt matter, its still copyright infringement. but these things can be good advertisements (when they dont suck), so WB probably lets it slide.
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:35 pm Posts: 4407 Location: Philadelphia/Los Angeles Gender: Male
Well I was wrong to initially speak so definitively on the subject, I since went back and had a brief email exchange with one of my best friends who has also worked in the industry itself and is pretty learned on everything. Instead of botching his point by trying to summarize it, I'll just post the text of his email here if anyone cares to read it, it is pretty informative I think.
Quote:
The question of copyright infringement isn't as straightforward as you might think. Ideas, Character names, place names, and descriptions of characters are not copyrightable. What is protected by copyright is the expression of the idea, i.e., the script and completed film, which is why you can't just use footage of a film or read someone's script over the air without attribution. The individual scenes and dialogue of a script are protected by copyright, but not the idea. The key question to ask is this: "Would a reasonable person mistake the work in question as having been created by the original filmmakers or copyright holders." That is straight out of the legal department. In this case I would have to say no, that work is obviously not from Warner Bros. Studios or DC Comics or Bob Kane. The fact that they put a title card in there that says they have no affiliation and it's a "not for profit" work is completely meaningless and just shows you that the filmmakers don't really understand "fair use" and it's implications. As a piece of fiction film making it is horrible, sophomoric, and unwatchable. The dialogue is pure exposition alongside an annoyingly large amount of voice over. At one point the voice over is actually reading what we are looking at, i.e., scrawling on a wall. Now that's just silly. Good cinematography does not a good movie make. Whomever made that film should learn how to write or become a fashion photographer or music video director. I must admit that I only watched six minutes of it before I couldn't take it anymore. The filmmakers relied on the audience to fill in the backstory by using familiar characters because they couldn't come up with an original idea themselves. In film school this kind of crap would earn you a D. It's all about the idea, not the execution of the idea. Hence the greatness of Cassavettes, Godard, Truffaut, Bunuel, Chaplin, etc., etc., etc.
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:27 am Posts: 4033 Location: tampa
Peeps wrote:
Fair use is an affirmative defense, but its application will vary greatly depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Courts apply a four part balancing test examining the scope of infringement, the effect on the copyright owner's rights (e.g. his or her ability to sell the work), the amount of the work copied, and the purpose of the infringement. Courts have held that a non-commercial use is not fair use when it has a substantial market effect. In cases with a small-scale impact, courts are more receptive to arguments regarding the effect on the copyright owner's market or potential market. Fair use is used mainly in the United States. Other common law jurisdictions have the more rigidly defined defence of fair dealing, while civil law jurisdictions also have similar defences.
I hate to agree with Peeps but he's pretty much right.
Well I was wrong to initially speak so definitively on the subject, I since went back and had a brief email exchange with one of my best friends who has also worked in the industry itself and is pretty learned on everything. Instead of botching his point by trying to summarize it, I'll just post the text of his email here if anyone cares to read it, it is pretty informative I think.
Quote:
The question of copyright infringement isn't as straightforward as you might think. Ideas, Character names, place names, and descriptions of characters are not copyrightable. What is protected by copyright is the expression of the idea, i.e., the script and completed film, which is why you can't just use footage of a film or read someone's script over the air without attribution. The individual scenes and dialogue of a script are protected by copyright, but not the idea. The key question to ask is this: "Would a reasonable person mistake the work in question as having been created by the original filmmakers or copyright holders." That is straight out of the legal department. In this case I would have to say no, that work is obviously not from Warner Bros. Studios or DC Comics or Bob Kane. The fact that they put a title card in there that says they have no affiliation and it's a "not for profit" work is completely meaningless and just shows you that the filmmakers don't really understand "fair use" and it's implications. As a piece of fiction film making it is horrible, sophomoric, and unwatchable. The dialogue is pure exposition alongside an annoyingly large amount of voice over. At one point the voice over is actually reading what we are looking at, i.e., scrawling on a wall. Now that's just silly. Good cinematography does not a good movie make. Whomever made that film should learn how to write or become a fashion photographer or music video director. I must admit that I only watched six minutes of it before I couldn't take it anymore. The filmmakers relied on the audience to fill in the backstory by using familiar characters because they couldn't come up with an original idea themselves. In film school this kind of crap would earn you a D. It's all about the idea, not the execution of the idea. Hence the greatness of Cassavettes, Godard, Truffaut, Bunuel, Chaplin, etc., etc., etc.
also LOL at your friend. he does realise this is someone who has too much time on their hands and a very limited budget, right?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Unfortunately you're entirely wrong, it doesn't matter if you're not trying to make a dime of money from it yourself, you're still using someone else's intellectual property without their permission, and that's copyright infringement. Whether you intend to make a profit or not, you need to secure licensing rights to use someone else's characters. Why do you think so many simple fan videos made from TV shows are taken down from youtube? True, a lot of them aren't, but a lot of them also are. It's because the copyright holder of that particular material finds out about it, alerts youtube, and it gets removed on the basis of copyright infringement, even if the youtube member is making it purely out of being a fan and for other fans just to have fun watching and nothing more.
But I wouldn't expect much else from round these parts. (or any message board for that matter)