The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0804 Monday, 18 September 2006
[1] From: Gabriel Egan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 15 Sep 2006 15:37:00 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0796 Movie Stills
[2] From: William L Davis <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 15 Sep 2006 11:35:58 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0782 Movie Stills
[3] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 15 Sep 2006 17:50:16 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0796 Movie Stills
[4] From: Tom Krause <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 16 Sep 2006 07:52:53 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0796 Movie Stills
[5] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 16 Sep 2006 20:55:32 -0400
Subj: Movie Stills
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Egan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 15 Sep 2006 15:37:00 +0100
Subject: 17.0796 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0796 Movie Stills
The negative responses to my arguments about theft and copyright overlook
the fact that defining the original combination of sounds, or words, or
pictures as property is a relative recent, and datable, socio-political
event. The definition runs counter to our ordinary sense of what
constitutes property.
So peculiar is this notion of 'intellectual property' that various
jurisdictions have at different times put different limits on its
expiration. Such concerns to limit copyright reveal that this is not a
form a property like the ones we're used to from everyday interaction with
objects.
It's pleasing to be alive at a time when notions of property are being
forcibly altered by the developing forces of reproduction, for this
illustrates a central Marxist principle about the relation of law to
power. William Davis thinks I've embarrassed myself by revealing the
distance between my views and reality. An unbiased observer of what is
actually happening with the peer-to-peer circulation of music and film
over the Internet would, I hope, see that those who spout the old legal
platitudes about the nature of copyright and property are simply trying to
talk back into the bottle a genie that is out for good.
I don't normally do this, but in case anyone wants to hear an argument for
the wider social good that has been generated by the actions of people who
were at the time denounced as copyright thieves, I made the case in a
paper for a conference at the University of Newcastle (UK) last year and
the full text is on my website at
http://www.gabrielegan.com/publications/Egan2005i.htm
Since I can't pretend there's a close connection to matters Shakespearian
in all this, I'll desist from further postings on the subject.
Gabriel Egan
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William L Davis <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 15 Sep 2006 11:35:58 -0400
Subject: 17.0782 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0782 Movie Stills
Shortly after sending Hardy my most recent response, I decided against
having it publicly posted and was in the process of sending an email to
Hardy to ask him to refrain from including my reply on the list. However,
just as I was finishing the request, an email from one of the readers
arrived in my email box which clearly indicated the posting had already
gone out to the list. This is something I regret because I would have
rather presented a more cogent explanation of how the law actually works
in these matters. But what the reader said made me even more concerned.
According to this reader, my reference to Gabriel Egan as a "stellar
academic scholar" was interpreted as hyperbole, said tongue in cheek as an
insult. It was not. Gabriel and I clearly disagree on this issue, but my
comment was intended to express my surprise at the contradiction I saw
between his intellect and his position on copyright and intellectual
property law. From my perspective, they do not match. My comment was
intended to point out that disparity, but not to insult his scholarship.
I regret that my words were misinterpreted this way, and I am writing this
note to offer a public apology to Gabriel for it. Even though we disagree
on these issues, it was never my intent to steer the discussion into a
direction that would be inappropriate.
Regards,
William
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 15 Sep 2006 17:50:16 -0400
Subject: 17.0796 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0796 Movie Stills
Jeffrey Jordan's otherwise admirable post says it is "replying to" me when
he quotes the following passage
>In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular
>
>>case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
>>(1) the purpose and character of the use, ...
>>(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>>(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
>>relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; ...
and says that
>The use of a few movie stills certainly falls under #3, and is fair use.
He is not replying to anything I said. He is quoting the statute and
expressing the opinion that certain conduct would be held by a court to be
fair use. I am not certain he is right, but that is what courts are for.
One thing that must be considered is whether the work being copied is the
movie or a photograph having a separate copyright. I am not sure that all
movie still were blowups of frames from the film; I believe that some were
separately commissioned from photographers who, of course, own their own
copyrights in their creations. Even if a still is a blowup of a frame, an
argument might be made that there is enough independent creativity in the
process to justify treating the still as a separate work. Making
assumptions of the character reflected by Jeffrey's analysis often gets
good people into bad trouble.
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom Krause <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 16 Sep 2006 07:52:53 -0400
Subject: 17.0796 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0796 Movie Stills
Professor Egan certainly has a knack for inspiring his critics to take
untenable positions. At this point, we don't have nearly enough
information to decide the strength of the fair use case of the original
poster, yet the critics are demanding licensing revenues, threatening
statutory and enhanced damages, and predicting awards of attorneys' fees.
And worst of all, equating copyright infringement with theft.
Copyright infringement is not theft, not even under the Berne Convention.
While it is common and perhaps forgivable to equate the two concepts when
speaking to schoolchildren, doing so stretches the definition of "theft"
beyond its breaking point, and doing so here insults the intelligence of
the members of this list. See Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 217
("[I]nterference with copyright does not easily equate with theft . . . .
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the
copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over
copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."). The
reasoning of Dowling is accepted and understood by copyright attorneys
everywhere, despite the positions they sometimes take in public fora.
I'll leave it at that for now; if anyone is seriously going to defend the
equation as anything other than a second-rate analogy (i.e. copyright
infringement is bad and doing it can get you into trouble, just like
theft), please do so with reference to the differences between criminal
and civil law, the elements of each crime/tort, the availability of any
defenses, and the remedies/penalties for each offense. If you can prove
that (1) there is an analogy to "fair use" in the law of theft, and (2)
that each time a copyrighted work is copied without permission, the
copyright owner loses a sale, that would be nice too.
Tom Krause
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 16 Sep 2006 20:55:32 -0400
Subject: Movie Stills
A client of mine who owns a well-known photographic stock house provides
the following information, which I think those who have been following
this thread will find of interest:
"Beginning with the talkies, motion picture cameras filming at the
standard 24 frames per second usually have been exposed for about 1/50th
of a second. This slow shutter speed creates the blur that makes the
motion look continuous when projected. And so a still made from a motion
picture film frame will usually be blurry except when the scene is wholly
static.
"This is why movie publicity stills made at the time of the original
filmings were never taken from film footage but were usually works for
hire taken by still photographers, invariably anonymous, in the pay of the
film producers. If you look carefully at the interminable credits at the
end of present-day films you will now see the still photographer credited
by name just before the first aid giver and the sandwich maker.
"Back in the silent days, publicity stills were taken with 8x10 cameras
and I have some original stills from Chaplin films so sharp that the pores
in his skin can be seen, far from the case with modern stills taken with
35mm cameras. But I also have blurry stills from Chaplin films made long
after from the motion picture film frames.
"To the best of my knowledge, except for Disney no film producer
copyrighted publicity stills during the entirety of the 1909 Act. They
were, after all, made in the hope and expectation that they would be
widely reproduced to publicize the films."
As the current act (the Copyright Act of 1976, effective January 1, 1979)
no longer makes registration the essential condition for the creation of
copyright protection, stills made after January 1, 1979, would be the
copyright property of the photographer or, more likely, the producer if
they qualify as works for hire.
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor
assumes no responsibility for them.
|
