The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0821 Wednesday, 20 September 2006
[1] From: Helen Whall <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 2006 14:28:46 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0811 Movie Stills
[2] From: Tom Krause <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 2006 07:50:09 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0811 Movie Stills
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Helen Whall <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 19 Sep 2006 14:28:46 -0400
Subject: 17.0811 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0811 Movie Stills
A pragmatic question: How does one get a movie studio to reply to
requests for permissions? I very much prefer to err on the side of
caution with the reproduction of images but have yet to identify a
simple path to securing permission for movie stills. Libraries, Presses,
and Theater Companies are ready to deal with these requests. But I have
sent a few letters to things like "Legal Department/SuchabdSuch Movie
Industries never to hear anything back. Some suggestions, please, from
those who have secured rights both to stills and very short clips?
Helen Whall
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom Krause <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 20 Sep 2006 07:50:09 -0400
Subject: 17.0811 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0811 Movie Stills
I agree that this has gone far afield and hope it will end soon, but I
only "quibbled" with the definition of "copyright infringement" when
three consecutive posters, holding themselves out as knowledgeable,
equated it with "theft."
Now I am asked for a "common word" other than "theft" that can be used
to describe copyright infringement. I'm sorry, the only word for it is
"copyright infringement." Everyone is familiar with the term; feel free
to tell us how copyright infringement resembles theft, or how you think
copyright infringers should be hung as thieves (if that's your view),
but please resist the temptation to equate the two.
Copyright infringement is a relatively recent statutory creation that
covers a broad spectrum of conduct, ranging from girl scouts singing a
song around a campfire to piracy for profit. While we might agree with
the economic argument that if the girl scouts don't pony up, some future
songwriter will simply throw in the towel and go to law school rather
than write the next "Happy Birthday" song, and we might agree that
infringement of any right created by our legislature is in some sense
"immoral," that doesn't make singing the song "theft." The "property" at
issue in a copyright infringement case is the copyright itself, not the
expectation of receiving payment from a particular use of the work. In
contrast to copyright infringement, theft always involves a victim who
has been deprived of tangible property, and has always been condemned as
immoral by civilized societies. For more on the moral differences
differences between copyright and theft, check out:
http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/06_STLR_5/Manesh-immorality.pdf
Moreover, fair use (a necessary accommodation to the right to free
speech) is a limitation on copyright infringement that has no analog in
"theft." Given that the readers of this list are much more likely to be
concerned with the uses that are either fair use, or borderline fair
use, we are not talking about "theft" or anything like it, but the
arcane and often very tricky question of how to apply the fair use
factors to a particular set of facts.
I'm a bit puzzled by your response Jeffrey Jordan - you continue to
insist that "the difference [between copyright infringement and theft]
is not really worth marking in general discussion" and "[a]s far as the
public is concerned, stealin' is stealin', and the legal technicalities
are not enforced around the water cooler," but at the same time you tell
us that the use of a few movie stills - apparently for any purpose - is
fair use. If a judge were to disagree with you on that issue and hold it
to be copyright infringement, would you turn around and call the person
who followed your advice a thief?
n.b. The Warner Bros. case you cite is not a Supreme Court case; it's
out of the Eastern District of Michigan, two levels below the Supreme
Court. And while it comes down strongly on the side of fair use on its
facts (use of copyrighted pictures in a movie), it is unlikely to have
much bearing on a decision on our facts (unspecified use of copyrighted
pictures from a movie).
Tom Krause
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
