Copyright ?

[SteveG]

Struggling to get written confirmation of this anywhere, hopefully someone can answer and point me towards it. It may sound stupid but I have not actually come accross it yet.

Lets take the film Toy Story as an example. I have a 10 inch Toy Story kids toy which I film and make some visuals from. Where do I stand with Copyright of the toy image being used for commercial gain. No mention on the toy box as to this image is Copyright material etc etc if the toy in fact even came in a box, lets say a purchase was from a car boot sale. If I dont know of the film, never seen it etc....I would imagine it's covered somehow but where and how is the question?

[hamageddon]

hm, i guess the closest thing in the neigbourhood would be brickfilms here
where lego toy figures are used extensively
http://www.brickfilms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=74

quoted from there:

[1-6] What about The LEGO Group's copyrights?

While LEGO (or any other toy-brick manufacturer) can not stop you from making and distributing films made with their products, you should not present your film as their product.

A few things to avoid to prevent any confusion:

1. Showing the brick brand name "LEGO" or "MegaBlok" etc.. Those blocks could be made by anyone. Think the tops of the studs. Try to make sure that the logo is not clearly visible in your movie.

2. Using LEGO characters, such as the Bionicle guys, Galidor, Jonny Thunder, or Jack Stone as the names of your movie's characters.

3. Using the word "LEGO" anywhere, like titling your film "Lego Wars".

4. Generally, diluting LEGO's brand name in any way by trying to pass off your film as made by them. Thnk of the bricks as a medium. Use other things besides just bricks in your films if you can.
(http://www.lego.com/eng/info/fairplay.asp)

[SteveG]

I think leggo blocks and figures is one thing but the blatant use of my kids Buzz whatever his name was would be another. Thanks for the find tho Hamageddon, appreciated.

[PCProject]

somebody will hold the rights to the likeness of buzz lightyear (infinity & beyond)

in the same way as princess diana's charity holds the rights to the likeness of her - the legal right to that was established over a court case involving commemorative plates produced i think in the US

[SteveG]

Thats what I would have imagined, OK for some of the really well known figures etc but the not so well known....just wondering where we would stand with that. Cheers Dave.

[PCProject]

i think it is pretty much the same deal as always - in the public domain during performance probably acceptable

release onto something that is being sold - probably not

unless some arsey film studio executive thinks you are worth suing i suppose

[deepvisual]

...in the same way as princess diana's charity holds the rights to the likeness of her - the legal right to that was established over a court case involving commemorative plates produced i think in the US

all hail the Franklin mint.
almost all the money raised for charity at the death of the royal brood mare, went on the court case

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000326/2502b.gif

[SteveG]

Such a way with words Gary :lol2:

[many2]

With a little humor, maybe it could pass as a parody ?

[mowgli]

And what about filming buildings on the street. Doesn't the architect hold copyright of the buildings? and cars, clothes, lamp posts....everything man-made. We're going to have to stick to natural elements, but make sure that its not GM or someone will hold the copyright for that too.

[many2]

Here we cannot even film people on the street without a written contract (called a release) with each and every recognizable person on the picture/clip. This has to do with a court ruling where a photographer was sentenced because he sold a picture to a magazine which used it as a cover. The picture was of a girl sitting outside, but there was no contract between the photographer and her. She attacked the photographer in court and won and since then no one wants to shoot anyone without a release. This makes TV reporting quite strange : most local shoots, even for TV news, are of peoples' back or are cropped shots without the heads of the persons, making them impossible to identify. Quite a contrast with footage coming from abroad...

[evomedia]

They are most likely to sue for defamation if you use the character in anything other than a positive way.

Or you could get done for over copyright infringement or say they need to protect the value of a trademark.
You must have seen cases over the years when people even try and use a dead celebrity like elvis in anything considered commercial gain. Really anything that uses a character from a film, or a personality is likely to land you in lots of trouble if you make money from them if they find out.

I'd steer well clear of ANYTHING related to disney or its subsiduaries like Pixar, they are the worst for sueing anyone that uses there characters without consent.

[evomedia]

Here is just a selection of cases

Take this case, they sued over a woman dressed as snow white who sang spoofs of the songs in a ceremony on tv:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDC153DF932A05750C0A96F9482 60

They sued these who even had a franchise

http://www.themq.com/index.php?articles_id=456&issue=133

You can't even claim parody in most courts when it comes to disney

The cases tend to concentrate their analysis on the third fair use factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. In Walt Disney Prod. v. Mature Pictures Corp resulted in a finding of infringement despite defendant's fair use defense. The court claimed that defendant did not parody, but merely sought to use the original.

Now if you use a model oif a disney character for your own gain finacially they wil deam that the same. You could have both the toy company that makes it, saying you did so without permission and disney sueing of use of the characters likenesss lol

Here is an interesting article in this PDF on page four about trademarking and even creditd the rise of the trademark in relation to characters to Disney following snow white.

http://www.foley.com/files/tbl_s31Publications/FileUpload137/3750/Good%20Marks-Manship.pdf

[evomedia]

ALL THAT SAID, you want to learn about copyright check this out:

EVERYONE... I MEAN EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://voirdire.stanford.edu/program/centers/cis/fairuse/Fair(y)_Use_Tale_Stanford_Cut-stream.mp4

:biggrin:

Its genius and people are waiting for the disney response, but its technicaly used for teaching they may just get away with it lol

[aiwaz]

two words

Robot Chicken

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2660802447916665129


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Chicken

[evomedia]

Not the same as using disney characters though, I wouldn't go anywhere near a disney character for clips, I don't need a summons

[holly]

Trademark is different than copyright. Most of the Disney issues are based on trademark. If Disney was the amazing tenticaled dragon wouldn't that little film be squarshed already?

I think we should ban this forum as more misinformation is spread than anything else. This forum is to scare little VJs before they are tucked in bed at night.

[evomedia]

I agree trademark is different from copyright, but I was covering all the aspects that disney sues over, that film gets away with it not because disney wont sue over copyright, but purely as its very clever and only uses disney footage for education purposes. A legal defense, still may not stand up if it leads to a courtcase. The fact they use disney clips is purposeful as Disney has a very long track record of sueing anyone who even remotely uses their characters without permission.

The use of footage for a commercial gain ie vjing and getting paid then you dont have a leg to stand on, the film I posted is a very different kettle of fish. If your going to get sued over copyright then disney is the number one for lawsuits against illegal usage of their material and characters.

Come on they sue over use of character, the case I included is a prime example, the sued over a woman dressed as snow white singing spoof songs for god sake. And the exact reason was it alleged copyright infringement of the Snow White character, unfair competition and violation of the state anti-dilution law, which protects the value of a trademark.

Alleging unauthorized use of its Snow White character in what it called an unflattering way. They could claim any usage of characters by anyone else is none flattering.

So although doesn't break a trademark they use the value of the trademark as the a primary factor in the case. Essentially their stance is that using their characters in none disney films or in any other form without permission devalues the value of the trademark.

I've worked in design studios for over 10 years, I have quiet alot of experience in the law of trademarks and copyright, as I have often had to revise designs after talking to lawyers about implications of spoofs, use of characters, fake adverts and alike. A friend works designing toys for a leading toy manufacturer who produces toys based on film and tv characters. Believe me Value of trademarks is a big deal even if you don't use the name.

[Bokonon]

Come on they sue over much less than this, the case of I included is a prime example, the sued over a woman dressed as snow white singing spoof songs for god sake. And the exact reason was it alleged copyright infringement of the Snow White character, unfair competition and violation of the state anti-dilution law, which protects the value of a trademark.

Alleging unauthorized use of its Snow White character in what it called an unflattering way. They could claim any usage of characters by anyone else is none flattering.

You have misrepresented that particular case - anyone who pays cursory attention to it would note that the incident took place at the opening of the oscars - not in a local theatre.

[evomedia]

True the case was for the oscar BUT that does not make their legal standpoint different. I used that case as it did not use footage, actual songs just the character. The term Alleging unauthorized use of its Snow White character in what it called an unflattering way. Now thats a legal standpoint that can be used against a VJ if they choose.

Disney are one of the most active entertainment companies both to sue and be sued,

Why use the character anyway? Pick any other toy except disney is all I'm saying, just because your a small time VJ does not mean your not breaking the copyright and devalueing their trademark in their eyes, you'll only be getting away with it as they havent found out.

If they see their characters used without permission, they sue, simple as. Chances of them seeing it are slim, but that doesn't mean they wont if they stumbled over it.

This post was asking if you can use a toy of a disney character for VJing and whats the legal standpoint, so here it is. If you choose to ignore that and do it anyway fair enough, but no point saying legally its ok.

[holly]

One of the cases I know of Disney suing a child day-care center is because they'd painted Micky and Donald on their windows. The implication is that this day care center is somehow connected with Disney Inc. They were trading on the brand recognition (trademark) of Disney characters to improve their business.

Trademark is like a signature. You selling beer with my trademark is like me writing checks and forging your name. It's not about free speech, it's about business fraud.

Since Disney has "respectability" as a brand among parents (at the very least a guarantee of quality), the trademark violation was clear. And before you cry about Disney suing little children, think about the last time you heard about a daycare center in the news....

[evomedia]

You have misrepresented that particular case - anyone who pays cursory attention to it would note that the incident took place at the opening of the oscars - not in a local theatre

I think we should ban this forum as more misinformation is spread than anything else. This forum is to scare little VJs before they are tucked in bed at night.

Its not about scaring people, I'm alittle fed up with this Vj's are somehow outside the law, anyone that states the actual law is somehow scaring people. Its not me that would sue. This is a law and ethic forum, for people to ask whats a legal and whats not. I've laid it out plain and clear. If its a case from the oscars that doesn't make the law involved any different.

Not saying I think its right or wrong, I know most if not all Vj's break these conventions, but if someone asks then we should be honest.

Do you think the law changes if your an individual? Shall we called this the "VJ law that ignores real law" forum. If you went to a lawyer, do you want advice that says oh its fine, you'll probably be ok, or, well the law is clear and if you choose to ignore it then you accept the risk. You can break copyright, get away with it, as most VJ's do, that does not mean they can't or wont sue, and if they do they will win.

Holly that daycare case is case and point, its not they won't sue, its a case of they sue if the see it.

[evomedia]

Personally i think Disney go way over the top on protecting their characters, they don't lilke spoofs or anyone infringing copyright, and get particluarly nasty if they view your making money off their work.

Its wierd as artists have been sueing Disney for stealing their work for years. But its a massive corporation with a legal department bigger than most corporations , and anyone with so many lawyers, with so much cash aint worth annoying.

Plus if like me you have a disney store down the road, with their ever smiling brainwashed employees, I can easily see one of them saying I saw this thing in a club the other day lol

[Bokonon]

Its not about scaring people, I'm alittle fed up with this Vj's are somehow outside the law, anyone that states the actual law is somehow scaring people. Its not me that would sue. This is a law and ethic forum, for people to ask whats a legal and whats not. I've laid it out plain and clear. If its a case from the oscars that doesn't make the law involved any different.

Not saying I think its right or wrong, I know most if not all Vj's break these conventions, but if someone asks then we should be honest.

Do you think the law changes if your an individual? Shall we called this the "VJ law that ignores real law" forum.

Holly that daycare case is case and point, its not they won't sue, its a case of they sue if the see it.

I'm not saything that it's not that law or that you are wrong, but i agree that it is scaremongering to some extent - whilst I don't believe I'm outside the law, i think that you are representing a view that anyone who infringes on a copyright or trademark is going to be sued , when the reality is that people infringe both on a daily basis with no come back regarding it - there has to be some kind of balance between formal legal standpoints and real world applications - has any VJ been done for copyright or trade mark infringment? I doubt it very much.

In addition, the court systems for dealing with both trademark infringment and copyright infringment are much less aggressive in the UK than they are in the US (where, I beleive, all of your examples come from - interestingly enough.)

[evomedia]

In addition, the court systems for dealing with both trademark infringment and copyright infringment are much less aggressive in the UK than they are in the US (where, I beleive, all of your examples come from - interestingly enough.)

Do your think that no one gets sued over copyright in this country? It may not be as widespread as the states but I've been advised by lawyers to change designs for stuff thats really small scale, I even had to settle out of court with oxford uni press when they stole my work.

I recently did posters for newbury college, and had to revise the designs in order to avoid futher action, that was 2 weeks ago, true a Vj hasn't had a legal problem yet. But I really think people here think that no cases yet somehow means it wont happen, and we are all safe from a stupid courtcase over something we view as minor.

Now Disney are not a UK company they are much more likely to sue, regardless of where the copyright infringement happened. They do sue internationally if they find anyone profiting from their characters. Chance of them seeing it very very very slim, I agree, but that does not mean they are any less likely too sue a VJ than a Daycare centre.

Lets face it, Vjs are some of the worst offenders for copyright infringment, we steal more copyrighted work to make money than almost any other sector. This idea that were somehow least likely to get sued really seems a joke, we view that because we have limited audiences that we wont register on the radar, did you know that some production companies view Vj's doing nothing else but stealing work. They dont want the hassle, and know we have no cash lol. Its a hassle for not much reward, thats the only reason we get away with it.

Lets have a look at the diana concert the other day, what happened, deepvisual turns up with footage, told cant use it only to see oneedotzero were using his material and handing it out to bands, he could sue them if he was that way inclined.. there you go a potential first case, it was even televised. Its that simple, to think we wont is a stupid mistake, I reckons its when. It only take one company, production house, film studio or even a VJ to get pissed off.

[Bokonon]

Do your think that no one gets sued over copyright in this country? It may not be as widespread as the states but I've been advised by lawyers to change designs for stuff thats really small scale, I even had to settle out of court with oxford uni press when they stole my work.

Nope, and that's not, by any stretch of the imagination, what I said - I said the legsl systems to deal with it are much less aggressive - which is the truth.

I would say that most non-corporate creative sectors are as bad as live visual types are - small time musicians, DJ's, Clubs, people who post stuff on myspace, youtube etc., small exposure web design is another place, these are probably of a similar order to VJing - if you get into the realms of coding, then people steal other peoples code all the time!

[evomedia]

The list of copyright cases in the UK is a very very very long one, I think your mad thinking the just because were in the UK were some how going to be ok.

DJ's get sued as soon as they release stuff commercially, Clubs have to pay PRS else they get summons.

Video and films and music are some of the most highly contested sections in copyright, artists sues all the time over music, ISP are getting done for it, youTube has cases pending, they dont get away with it all the time, we are not a country where because of Youtube and Myspace it somehow means the courts cant handle it.

How many music download sites have been closed after court action? Most of them, even this week there was another case. Artists sue over illegla sampling all the time, Youtube and myspace make no money, but VJ's do, companies sue much more often if the view its for commercial gain.

The individuals on youTube may not get sued, but the people in charge may well, if where the buck stops, you make money from copied material.

Why do you think companies display copyright notices unless they intend to enforce them, av staging companies us motion loop on stages, because the risk is real. For VJs its very small but its a risk none the less

[Bokonon]

The list of copyright cases is a very very very long one, I think your mad thinking the just because were in the UK no one ever gets done over copyright.

Where do you get this stuff from?

You are putting wildly inaccurate potentially defamatory and quite frankly absurd words into my mouth!

[evomedia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_sampling

AS they point out So far, not a single VJ has been prosecuted for copyright infringement. But VJ's may have been able to stay under the radar because most them are independent and often, less than wealthy, which makes them an unlikely target for a corporate lawsuit. And until they begin to record and sell their live performances they might be able to avoid infringement lawsuits.

Operative word is might

[evomedia]

Just getting properly f**ked off with everyone thinking copyright law wont affect this industry, that its scare mongering, that the UK not the US so we wont be troubled and can do what we like, the fact is everyone knows that VJ's are breaking copyright, so whats going to happen as the industry increases, we start getting better known, want to sell DVDs. Even record companies and festivals may take a stand if this attitude continues and they get done for televising a VJ set by mistake.

I started off stating the law in a law and ethics forum and every time, I get attacked for scaremongering, why does anyone who talks about copyright end up with a having to justify this, I didn't write the law, the uk does have a huge amount of copyright cases, the ONLY reason we are not getting sued is because we are skint.

Its a Law and Ethics forum, why does explaining the law mean I have to keep on having to defend myself.

The law states copyright infringement is against the law, Disney do sue over anyone using their characters for commercial gain, the fact is its all true, saying the cases I state are from the wrong country, who cares, the law doesn't change. We are just unlikely to be the target of a courtcase, doesn't mean we're justified and can use it. Because we are independent and broke, is the only reason a VJ hasn't been prosicuted yet, its nothing to do with fair usage, artistic expression, but purely that most VJ's dont sell work and only show to a small audience. Believe me we all want the Festival gigs, maybe make a bit of cash from selling mixes, but people need to start making their own content or clearing clips if they intend to start doing either.

[evomedia]

Oops double post

[evomedia]

Originally Posted by evomedia
The list of copyright cases is a very very very long one, I think your mad thinking the just because were in the UK no one ever gets done over copyright.


Where do you get this stuff from?

You are putting wildly inaccurate potentially defamatory and quite frankly absurd words into my mouth!

I appolgise I mean "no one will ever" rather than "no one ever" gets done, just missed out will when typing.

Now you may think I'm missing your point Bokonon, and that small scale usage, is almost never going to be pursued, and I completely agree, you will probably never be sued for your copyright breakages. However, with VJing becoming ever more popular, and sites like youTube and mySpace are creating a copying epidemic, I know that makes us all think individuals doing it are generally pretty safe from scutiny. But you tube has had to limit is maximum length of clips to 10 munites to stop legal action over films and tv shows. Still didn't stop clips appearing but they had to do something to stop legal attempts to close them down otherwise.

And if any corp would sue a broke single VJ it's Disney, they more than almost any other company aggressively defend its brands.

Also video sampling has become so wide spread that if anyone was a target to make an example of, a VJ is a pretty good bet, I bet they could confiscate almost any VJ's machine to find copied video, music but most likely tens of thousands of pounds worth of illegal software.

Also I reckon most VJ's sample, without any concern of source, it could be from a small company that view the assets in the work as being at much greater risk if sampled. They are much more likely to seek compensation from copyright theft.

Video sampling is becoming synonimous with the term VJ. And unlike every other industry no one clears clips, the music industry has sampling and copying but the professional elements of the industry have to clear their clips, however VJ's never do, I hear this arguement that individuals will not get caught, but we are essentially employed to play this stuff, we make money where as youTube videos do not. At some point this will come back to bite us...

[Larky]

OK, well it depends hugely on many factors. Coming from the film industry and having to deal with this stuff I'd say that you'll be fine to use anything as long as it is not for any commercial gain or for any registered charity. Basically if anybody is earning money because of the images you'd get sued, and lose. If it's used to advertise the show etc, then that's bad. If it just pops up for a few seconds overlaid with other stuff, you'll generally be fine.

However, it does depend on the company. Disney are very, VERY protective and would not think twice about suing somebody using this stuff in a VJ show even if it was all free, and they would win. Microsoft however would probably give you a contract if they found out, they are very good at public relations.

The thing to do is be a little careful. If it's a small gig and you are doing it for free, basically a friends house party or whatever then use anything. If you or anybody else is earning money, don't use it.

[asterix]

Its an interesting point to raise though. Evo your totally right and yet so it Bokonon. But fuckem. A chocolate company in Australia trademarked the color 'purple' (no not just a PMS - the entire colour purple!!). Drug companies are patenting every plant, organism and bilogical species they can get thier hands on. Soon I may not be able to piss without checking with Coca Cola first because they made the stuff that made me piss. Where does it all end?
If you can't film a toy for a few harmless vj clips, then what can you film in the manmade world? Still I wouldn't dare do it at a big gig. But for your average type vj gig whats the harm.

[MasterNinja]

Uneducated and Unsafe advice from me:

If your gonna start selling/giving out your stuff on a DVD either cut out what you might be sued for and make your own audio for the DVD OR be really sly and hope noone notices. If its a live gig your talking about then you'll proberbly get away with it if the crowd numbers in at less than a thousand (then you'll be less likely draw attention to yourself) =D.

The best way I think to get away with it is to mash up your samples and after effects the hell out of them so you cant tell that well.

On YouTube you can do what you want cause no one gives a shit/will find out. Unless your vid gets into the Top 5 cause then your dead meat if you got Tigger on drugs or Darth Vader doing a rap.


Hope that helps! =D

[many2]

The best way I think to get away with it is to mash up your samples and after effects the hell out of them so you cant tell that well.


Please do not take this as an attack on your opinion - if it works for you then go for it :)

But I have a different opinion : I believe that if you sample then your sample should be easy to identify. The power of a sample resides in its evocation potential : it is not the image you see on the screen that is the most important but all the images, and all the context, of the original work you are referring to with your sample. If you sample "The Sound of Music" then your audience will not only see the pictures you are showing but they will also remember the film itself. That is the power of the sample : you show a few seconds of a well known film and with those few seconds you can evoke hours of footage in the heads of your audience.

If you mix, mash and distort the footage beyond recognition then you lose that evocative power. Not only that, but you lose precious time working on the footage to make it look as different as possible from the original sample while you could be using the same time and skills to create something new that is exactly what you want. Sure you can add random splashes of paint over a Picasso or a Mondrian to make sure no one will recognise it (I wonder if an artist as ever done that) but it is much better imho to create your own painting and leave the masters alone.

[Larky]

I agree with you fully there many2. PS, on the subject of creating new stuff if anyone wants some 3D help, just shout (been doing it for 15 years). Now, I'm off to ask the Chilli chef if I'm allowed to...