[WikiEN-l] Are movie trailers "free enough" for Commons?

[geni]

2008/9/8  <WJhonson at aol.com>:
> You are not addressing my point.  I did not say "reject" statute  law.  My
> point is that we cannot add interpretations to statute law except  based on case
> law.

How much say Freedom of panorama caselaw do you think there actually is?

> Many if not most questions about copyright, like this  one, are not
> specifically addressed in statute law.  It is rather case law  that is
> interpreting what "published" means, what "product" means, what  "derivative" means, and
> so on.
>

No because the way that trailers are distributed fits an established
method of publishing (mostly you would hit issues with trailers only
shown at festivals but that isn't relevant for the stuff we are
talking about) derivative isn't relevant because the trailers were not
made by a third party (if they were there are potential issues but
otherwise we fall in line with Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v.
Public Building Commission of Chicago). "product" isn't a legal term
relevant to the issue.

> So we cannot address the question of whether trailers are the same or a
> different product, since this is not addressed directly in statute law, but only
> addressed or partially addressed in case law.
>
> In that case, I would lean toward adding no additional interpretations on
> our part, and letting the case law determine the situation.
>

There is no  additional interpretation. As statute law is written
screen shots of trailers published before their respective films
without copyright notices are PD. There are some possible exceptions
but given what we use them for we are unlikely to trigger them (say a
copyrighted painting appeared in the trailer).

-- 
geni