The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0796 Friday, 15 September 2006
[1] From: Jeffrey Jordan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 2006 17:10:55 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0791 Movie Stills
[2] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 2006 18:27:31 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0791 Movie Stills
[3] From: William L Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 2006 20:08:35 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0782 Movie Stills
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Jordan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 2006 17:10:55 -0500
Subject: 17.0791 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0791 Movie Stills
Replying to Larry Weiss.
>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; ...
This isn't a discussion of using entire movies, or even extended clips,
it's about using stills. At least that's what the original question was
about. The use of a few movie stills certainly falls under #3, and is
fair use.
A 2-hour movie running at 30 frames per second will contain some 216,000
frames. The use of, let's say, 20 stills from the movie would be a
portion equal to about 0.001 percent of the movie (if my calculator is
on its toes today.) That is not a substantial portion by any reasonable
standard. People will be fine in using a few stills from a movie. It's
no different from using a few brief quotes from a novel that's being
discussed. The use of an entire movie, or an extended clip from a
movie, is a different subject.
Replying to Gabriel Egan.
>Taking a copy of my friend's DVD does not deny my friend the
>benefits of owning the DVD. ...
That is extremely bad reasoning. You have misunderstood what copyright
is, versus what a copy is. Your friend did not buy the copyright when
he bought a copy of the DVD. Your friend is not the copyright owner.
When you copy a friend's DVD you are, in fact, depriving the copyright
owner of a sale. There are now two copies instead of one, but the
copyright owner has only been paid for one.
>That's why it isn't theft and why no-one should be ashamed of it.
It is most definitely theft, from the copyright owner, and anyone should
be very ashamed of it. It is called stealing.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 2006 18:27:31 -0400
Subject: 17.0791 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0791 Movie Stills
Gabrial Egan argues:
> Taking a copy of my friend's DVD does not deny my friend
>the benefits of owning the DVD. That's why it isn't theft and
>why no-one should be ashamed of it.
But it is theft; not of your friend's property but of the property of
the creator of the DVD, who has the exclusive right to make copies (17
USC sec 106). If Gabe's quibble is with this universal law (see Berne
Convention), he should address himself to the national legislatures that
have enacted it, not encourage people to break the law. I doubt he is
willing to indemnify anyone who suffers as a result of following his
advice, and I doubt even more that he is ready and able to do so.
People who write books, write and perform music, produce motion
pictures, etc., are compensated based on the number of other people who
are willing to buy the books, records, DVDs, etc. By making
unauthorized copies the pirate deprives the creators of income they have
the right to receive. That is theft.
There are members of this List who make a living teaching students. If
their universities took to taping their lectures and distributing the
tapes to any student who signs up for the course, they could easily
dispense with the professors' services. This might be a good idea; it
could lead to reduced tuition and dispose of those pesky troublesome
academics who often find a way to embarrass their institutions. Who
could possibly object?
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William L Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 14 Sep 2006 20:08:35 -0400
Subject: 17.0782 Movie Stills
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0782 Movie Stills
I debated about responding; after all, it's clear Gabriel is set in his
opinions. Pointing out the numerous fallacies in Gabriel's home-grown
legal perspectives would not achieve much good because he clearly feels
justified in his exceptionally peculiar view of the rule of law, and any
attempt to spell it out would clearly be a waste of time.
His attempt to counter my examples with the spurious logic he chose to
employ clearly indicates he does not fully comprehend the scope and
ramifications of the law regarding these matters, or what my examples
actually demonstrated. As such, it's impossible to engage in meaningful
dialogue. I frankly find myself embarrassed for him, seeing such a
stellar academic scholar showing his bum in such a painfully public way.
Only those completely ignorant of the law could be swayed by such
pathwork logic.
We can dance around the issue with distractions, funny sayings,
rhetorical flourishes, and wave our magic wands in an attempt to
distract the watchers from the reality of these actions and what they
represent, but it will not turn illegal activities into legal ones.
Advocating that people may exploit someone else's work for gain in the
manner Gabriel has suggested reflects an attitude that has no care,
concern or regard for the interests and property rights of other people.
Call it what you like, dice it how you will, such attitudes and
behavior will always be unprofessional, irresponsible and unethical.
For those who still prefer to take Gabriel's advice over the advice of a
professional who actually works in the field, I have some free advice:
don't ever represent yourself in court.
Regards,
William
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.