On Thu, 14 May 1992 17:57:40 EDT Cal said:
>
>The logic of not diminishing value is dubious; even an amateur in these matters
>(I am not an attorney nor am I giving legal advice) could punch through that
>allegation.  The Studios do sell "production stills" which mimic the actual
>scene but are photographically better than frame enlargements.  While not in
>the multi-million dollar range the sale of rights to use production stills is
>a small profit center.  I have heard prices of fifty to one hundred dollars per
>still.  If one could avoid paying these prices by simply copying frames,
>well . . . .
>
 I should point out, as I didn't in the original post, that Thompson
 stressed that copyrighted production/publicity stills are very different
 from frame enlargements.  She/Bordwell/McGraw-Hill do pay permissions
 for theuse of those stills, apparently.
 
 One apparent loophole in the copyright on stills, however, is that if
 they have been used in a publication without getting permission and
 the copyright holder does not challenge that use of the still, then
 they enter public domain.  Thus, subsequent use of them is not
 protected by copyright.
 
 Interesting, the twists and turns that copyright law takes.
 
----------
          The fact that boys are allowed to exist at all is evidence of a
          remarkable Christian forebearance among men.
                                  --Ambrose Bierce--
----------
 
|                                      | BITNET   :        JBUTLER@UA1VM |
| Jeremy G. Butler - - - - - - - - - - | Internet : [log in to unmask] |
| SCREEN-L Coordinator                 | GEnie    :           J.BUTLER27 |
|                                                                        |
| Telecommunication & Film Dept * The University of Alabama * Tuscaloosa |