SCREEN-L Archives

May 1992


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 14 May 1992 17:57:40 EDT
text/plain (32 lines)
Part of the point to the copyright is that there are criminal and civil actions
possible.  If you bootleg tapes and sell them, that's criminal.  If you copy
pages from a book and sell them (e.g., Kinko) that a civil matter.
It is a rule of life that anyone can sue anyone else; and the party with the
greatest assests and willingness to expend them wins.  Thus: one can use
frame enlargements as suggested by Thompson, just as Kinko copied material they
had no right to.  But one should be aware of the risk exposure.  It may also
be that B & T have a deal with their publisher under the publisher's legal
As far as "contact with Library of Congress representatives;" they are hardly
disinterested parties.
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 . . . .
A better argument might be made on ground of "fair use."  But that was the
argument made by the losing defendant in the Kinko case.  Yet, I suppose it's
worth trying, if one is willing to risk it.
Cal Pryluck                               <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film             <[log in to unmask]>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122