A few reactions to Dan's remarks in the message below. 1. I'm glad Dan cites the Video-Cinema Films v. CNN case. It does help strengthen the case for fair use in a realm (the Hollywood industry) that has usually shaped over-cautious behavior. I agree with him, though, that film publications do seem to remain cautious about use of film frame enlargements without auhorization from the copyright holder. An informal survey I did a few months ago gave me the impression that "web only" publications are a bit more liberal--and may tend to consider frame images to be okay without the author getting clearance (e.g., Kinoeye)--whereas those publications also in print or print only (except through closed access electronic subscription) tend in the conservative direction. This was the result of checking with 9-10 of them. Your mileage may vary. 2. As for Dan's mention that "2002 copyright legislation now in effect in the US allows university educators to put ENTIRE COMMERCIAL FILMs on edu web sites, provided they are only accessible for students and for instructional purposes"... I'm puzzled. What legislation is this? If you're referring to the TEACH Act--passed as part of the Dept. of Justice appropriations bill and now incorporated into the appropriate secitons of the Title 17 copyright law--I'm afraid it isn't so. TEACH provisions are explicit about limiting networked distance education use of such works as films (which don't generally qualify as "nondramatic literary and musical works" that can be transmitted wholesale) to "reasonable and limited portions". This alone (there are other TEACH provisions that might obstruct) precludes the practice that Dan suggests. Unless, of course, the fair use provision--which isn't a part of TEACH's scope--can be creatively applied to justify it. Jeff ********** Jeff Clark Director Media Resources (MSC 1701) James Madison University [log in to unmask] 540-568-6770 (voice) 540-568-3405 (fax) ========================================= Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:01:43 -0500 From: Dan Streible <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Copyright for Film Stills Video-Cinema Films Inc. v. CNN, et al., 98 CIV. 7130(BSJ), (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2001) At end of 2001, a federal court ruled that CNN, ABC and CBS did NOT violate copyright in "The Story of G.I. Joe" by including portions of the film in their TV obituaries of Robert Mitchum . "The defendants' clips were used because of their relevance to Mitchum and not to convey a synopsis of the original film," the court said. "Just as parody must mimic the original work to make its point, and biographers are permitted to quote their subjects, so too should obituaries about actors be allowed to show reasonable clips of their work." News obits. were deemed transformative [i.e., new] works, and were "aimed to inform the viewing public and educate them regarding Mitchum's impact on the arts." So one would think a still image for educational, non-profit, scholarly use would also be 'fair use.' While overall the media corporations are winning increasing power in copyright, the 2002 copyright legislation now in effect in the US allows university educators to put ENTIRE COMMERCIAL FILMs on edu web sites, provided they are only accessible for students and for instructional purposes. And -- remarkably -- so long as the school has purchases a version of the motion picture with a license for classroom use, the school does NOT have to request permission to 're-purpose' it for web display, but may use it just as in a classroom projection. That being said many publishers are still timid about pushing 'fair use' of film stills. But if authors push for freer access there are some new legal justifications that stand to make fair use more, shall we say, fair. Dan Streible (whose legal opinions have no standing in any court anywhere) ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite