SCREEN-L Archives

February 2002, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Proportional 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
Subject:
From:
Jessica Rosner <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:32:53 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2