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 19:08:23 EDT
text/plain (27 lines)
Hey ma, look at me in a legal debate!
Again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving legal advice.  That said, the claim
that a frame enlargement used without protest enters into public domain is
roughly correct, as I understand these matters.  However, to make sense it has
to be the EXACT frame that enters public domain.  The next frame over is still
covered.  I'll bet that anyone using something like the frames that B&T used
will not be using the EXACT frame, unless they get it from them.
Jeremy's reference to McGraw is more to the point.  I suspect that for reasons
of their own, the publishers have decided to include this practice under their
legal insurance.  B&T would thus be protected by the best lawyers McG can buy.
That's perhaps a risk worth taking.
It would be interesting to know just what legal protection McG-H has offered
B&T, since many publishers are so spooked on this issue that they insist
on permissions for even short quotes clearly protected by fair use.
For an example of a vigilant rights agency look to the music business.  Notice
that every time authors use as little as a single line from a song, the rights
have been cleared.
Cal Pryluck                               <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film             <[log in to unmask]>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122