Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > While recent US copyright legislation has been overly favorable to corporate 'authors', surprisingly, more recent court ruling have been upholding and even expanding the 'fair use' of film clips and stills. Last week the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a major challenge to the copyright law, one which would (among other things) allow for digital reproduction of movies for the sake education and access. Other recent federal cases have actually upheld the right of parties (ranging from TV news networks to individuals) to use clips from Hollywood motion pictures, so long as it was not for commercal gain. So if a clip can sometimes be used legitimately, one assumes a single frame grab is fair use too. Of course it's always best to credit (and thank) sources. But copyright law is open to interpretation; just because a party asserts that they have the legal right to charge money for permission to reproduce something doesn't mean this is so. I am unaware of the Supreme Court agreeing to review anything involving digital reproduction. The case they agreed to hear last week only involved the copyright EXTENSION as far as I know but I would love to hear otherwise. Also is anyone aware of the status of the case between Richard Feiner and the Hollywood Reporter? Mr. Feiner had won a summery judgement in New York involving the use of a Laurel & Hardy publicity still that the Hollywood Reporter used in an ad. It was a strange case because the still in question came from MGM in a compilation reissue and they gave permission but Mr. Feiner owned the film and he sued. I f anyone has an update on this, please post Jessica Rosner ---- For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html ---- To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]