Yeah, so you get angry, but you don't explain why it makes any
difference when the person using the still chooses something other than
what you want him to use. This is not a matter of copyright anymore.
Any two shots would have the same amount of material.
Ec
Matthew Larsen wrote:
This of course coming from people who have never made a
film / TV
program. I get really angry when people use images from my films and
dont tell me about it. I release trailers, and if they want any screen
grabs they can get them from those.
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:31:33 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
>
>
>>The dissenting High Court judges thought that the majority was
>>deliberately misinterpreting the law to achieve a victory for common sense.
>>
>>
>I can sympathize with his outrage. ;-)
>
>
>>More generally, it seems to me that there is a tendancy round here to
>>assume laws are written the same way as programming language definitions.
>>>From my layperson's perspective, that seems to be quite wrong -
there's a
>>lot of fudging and playing around with ambiguities to get the "right"
>>outcome, and screw the pedantry.
>>
>>
>We've often heard it said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It
>works both ways. It neither excuses a wrongful act, nor a failure to
>take a rightful benefit.
>
>
>>So my gut feeling is that the common sense aspect of using film stills to
>>illustrate an encyclopedia article makes it very, very unlikely we'll
>>ever get challenged on it, and that if we ever were we'd be highly
>>likely to win any court case.
>>
>>
>Absolutely.
>
>